Menopause International > Volume 14, Number 4 > Pp. 181

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hope, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the British Menopause Society: Menopause and the media

Breaking the news to the public: a journalist's perspective

Jenny Hope

Medical Correspondent, The Daily Mail, UK

The Daily Mail is the second most popular national newspaper with a circulation of 2.3 million, and going up, making a readership of around six million. As Medical Correspondent I write some of the health stories that give readers hope, or cause for concern. These often fall at either end of the good news/bad news spectrum.

At one end, it is the business of promotion when people are trying to sell me something whether its the Department of Health, a PR firm acting on behalf of a drug company or even a hospital press office. At the other end, it is ‘crisis’ reporting, including ‘scares’ that can range from the withdrawal of a drug to an National Health Service blunder that puts patients at risk.

The business of drug companies, for example, can do tremendous public good, drugs save lives and improve the quality of lives, but they are extremely powerful corporations that exist to make profit and recoup research costs. The resulting conflict – making profit out of illness – does not sit easily in the British context of free health provision. Nevertheless, drug promotion is a necessary part of the contract that makes news. But how do the press or public know when things are going wrong? The most obvious signals are drug withdrawals, Government safety warnings and research findings that give journalists the opportunity to increase the awareness and investigate.

Anti-hormone replacement therapy stories have dominated the headlines in recent years, yet they were driven almost entirely by peer-reviewed research that led to controversy, contradiction and, above all, confusion. Although much of the coverage has been negative it has fairly reflected dire pronouncements from US and British experts behind the research – specialist reporters have only been the messengers. Different presentations by those generating the data might have made clearer what those risks actually meant, helping to put them in perspective for reporters and readers.

Understanding which health stories make news – and why – is the key to getting across the doctor's point of view. The facts, the logistics, timing and agenda of those involved have to come together to meet all-important deadlines, which these days are round-the-clock and driven by online news services.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Hope, J. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                      What's this?