In the first installment of this series, we introduced the various problems involved in presenting and consuming health information and discussed the problem of bias in scientific research and reporting. Definitely read that to start if you haven’t yet.

In this installment, we will offer a critique of journalism as it contributes to our access to health information.

Note: This is not a rant about “fake news.” That term has become a political weapon and this article is designed to point out real flaws in our methods of presenting and consuming information and how we can do our best to glean the most accurate and useful information in a sea of options. 

Three main problems in journalism affecting our access to health information:

• The journalist-is-not-an-expert problem
• The for-profit media model
• Ideological bias in media

The journalist-is-not-an-expert problem

The first issue–and arguably the most important–is in regards to what constitutes a journalist. Are bloggers “journalists?” Are freelance writers “journalists?” Am I, writing this at this very moment, a “journalist?”

This has become one of the most exciting developments, while simultaneously one of the most poignant problems, to have arisen out of the Information Age: anyone and everyone can be their own media outlet.

Bloggers submit their opinions to the world wide web, pundits send their thoughts racing down the information superhighway, and businesses present whatever information (true or not) on their websites that best suits their bottom line. Everyone is chattering at the Internet. That is why it is so important to consider the source. And if in question, default to skepticism. If the person or organization offering you information has something to gain, or if they are trying to make you believe something rather than something else, it might be true, but take it with a big grain of salt. Consider the source.

Speaking of the source and “real” journalists…

For decades, we trusted organizations like The New York Times, Fox News, NPR, the Washington Post, etc. While it is generally true that these organizations will hold themselves to a much higher standard than a blogger in his mom’s basement, there are still questions about the validity of the information presented.

It’s not necessarily that these organization have an agenda (even though they do–at least in some areas like politics and economics), it’s that no journalist can know everything about their “beat.”

Journalists tend to specialize based on their interests. Some are political journalists, arts & culture journalists, economics journalists, science journalists or whatever other segmentation of human life you can possibly imagine.

So, on the New York Times staff, there is one (or maybe two or three) science journalists, then they have various freelance journalists they can likely call on if needed. But still, if you put that entire team in a room, they are still not true experts in the field they write about. Journalists are good at what they do because they can research a topic and present it to the public in a universal, digestible way. They may be very knowledgeable about health (for example) but never in the same way as a health practitioner. As a result, important nuances and details are often missed. This results in a rather shallow understanding for the reader, who is forced to make assumptions or leap to conclusions about the topic.

The for-profit media model

As of 2011, 90% of American media was owned by six companies (General Electric, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS). Their combined revenue was $275 billion. These are publicly-traded corporations with shareholders, boards of directors, executives and employees whose objective is to maximize profits.

And how do they maximize profits? By getting you to purchase their product. And how do they get you to purchase their product? By giving you what you want.

This is going to sound like a condemnation of the American public (because that’s exactly what it is). What you want is exciting headlines, reports about revolutionary breakthroughs, celebrity gossip, quick-fix content, short sound bites, eye-catching graphics, fun videos, interaction with other users…. etc.

Not that people DON’T want more, but what they seem to want less of is long-form articles with deep and meaningful expositions of a topic that explore nuance, differing viewpoints, backstory and context. And believe me, I realize the irony of writing that in the middle of my four-part, long-form article series.

Nevertheless, media companies have discovered what makes you click a link, buy a magazine or continue watching a video, and it does not usually result in good information.

Here’s a funny example of a “click-bait” headline that results in misleading the reader.

PEOPLE Magazine: “A Chemical in McDonald’s French Fries Could Help Cure Baldness, Study Says”

“Wow!” you exclaim. “Really???”

Well, if you read the article, that is not true at all. The study never says McDonalds french fries could help cure baldness. The study says that a chemical that is present in McDonald’s french fries (in very small quantities) has helped regrow hair in certain kinds of mice.

But if you are a bald guy (or have a bald husband), you probably clicked it! And those who didn’t click it, or even go further and actually read the article, or even go further and actually read the study the article references, well… they probably thought they should go get some McDonald’s french fries.

Do you see the problem? No, McDonald’s french fries won’t regrow your hair, and the oil they use to cook them is terrible for you, not to mention that potatoes are among the less healthy vegetables you can eat.

Ideological bias in media

This is a very controversial topic, and what is at the root of the “fake news” frenzy sweeping our society.

It is a problem, but not as much of a problem as is portrayed. Furthermore, it is more complicated than, say, “Fox is conservative and CNN is liberal.” There has been a fairly good study on the subject if you want to dig deeper. But for our purposes, we are focusing on health and related topics (biology, medical research, etc.).

There are certain topics most major media outlets agree upon and any discussion outside of that agreed viewpoint is either ignored or ridiculed.

For example, safety concerns regarding children’s vaccines. I’m not going to present a viewpoint on that topic here. Rather, I am simply pointing out that no media outlet in America would consider entertaining an honest debate and/or in-depth story on the subject (unless it was to ridicule anti-vaxxers) because they have decided, as an industry, how they feel about the topic.

The bottom line

First of all, consider who is presenting information to you. Do they have anything to gain by convincing you of a particular message? Are they a reputable organization with a long history of integrity in reporting, or is it just some writer for a website looking to make some money?

Second, don’t just read headlines and leave it at that. Of course, no one has time to read all of the articles that come into their lives, but if it’s something that applies to you, actually read the article and possibly even go further into source material (journal articles, clinical trials, etc.).

Take the zeitgeist into account. That is to say, where does society in general stand on the issue being discussed? If the majority of a news outlet’s readers believe chemo, radiation and surgery are the only viable treatments for cancer, don’t expect any major news outlet to offer a fair discussion for alternative treatments.

Stay tuned for Part 3, where we will discuss how you and I, the readers, help create the problem.