Reclaiming Integrity in Health Reporting
Because of the Internet, we are blessed with a near infinite amount of information at our fingertips on just about any topic that tickles our fancy. At the same time it's something of a curse; it is easy to become saturated with too much information, and difficult to decide what's worth paying attention to. This seems especially true when it comes to articles on health, exercise, and lifestyle. Who hasn't heeded the advice that consuming this or that "superfood" has great health benefits, only to read a year or two later that eating that food may be hazardous to your health, or vice versa?
Changing positions on a topic is a natural aspect of good scientific research where the results of one investigation will give rise to subsequent studies that sometimes confirm the earlier findings and sometimes bring them into question. That is how scientific knowledge is refined over time. I believe the real cause of health information confusion sits with businesses that are willing to market products and services before sufficient data is in, and with the health reporting community itself. The issue of selling products and services with poorly substantiated claims is a matter I don't care to comment on today. What I would like to focus our attention on is the phenomenon of bad health news reporting.
As a scientist I've been trained to think as objectively as possible about information. That means considering information without the undue influences of personal opinions, politics, or economics. Sadly almost all of the health related information we find in the media has been influenced by distorting factors. At the milder end of the scale we have individuals reporting the results of scientific investigations in a manner that makes it sound as though the findings are more definitive then they actually are. For example: a health reporter might report on a finding that a certain food item contains compounds that help fight cancer. So informed, readers concerned about cancer might be lead to consume more of that food, and supplement companies might produce and aggressively market concentrations of those compounds. But what if the actual findings of the study were simply that high concentrations of those compounds slowed the growth of mouse cancer cells in a petri dish under carefully controlled conditions? There may in fact be no reason to believe that consuming the food that contains them will have any benefit in fighting any cancer in people or even mice for that matter, and there may be no benefit to consuming concentrated forms by way of supplements.
This type of deceptive reporting is not to the reading public's benefit or their pocket books, but why does it happen? Well one likely motivation is the desire to grab audience attention. Let's admit it -- who doesn't like to read that eating certain foods or using certain products will have amazing health benefits?
Of course the opposite is also true. Many health reports seem to utilize the same strategy as the nightly news: fear mongering. I used to subscribe to a health-related newsletter that comes out my Native Ontario, and stopped my subscription after realizing that one third of the article headlines were fear-based. Headlines such as "5 things you may be eating everyday that are compromising your health." For me, the sad thing about this kind of poor reporting is that even if the information in the articles is valid, it's a counterproductive approach in the Health and Wellness field. We are inundated with enough negativity and fear on a daily basis and to imbue our thinking about health with negativity is an ironic perversion of the whole concept. To be sure there is room for reporting on the negative impact of certain dietary and environmental influences in our lives but those kinds of reports can always be couched in positive and upbeat ways. Even a simple change of phrase such "5 things you might want to avoid for better health" gets the information across but it's not fear- inducing.
So why do health reporters use such headlines and why do they often exaggerated the benefits or dangers of foods and products? I like to think it mostly comes down to a lack of training in logical, rational thought or a lack of appreciation for the true nature of science and its findings, but in many cases I suspect it comes down to marketing. Exaggerating benefits and dangers catches people's attention. If you are writing an article, you want a publisher to buy it, and if you are the publisher, you want readers to read it. The bottom line is of course economics. Writers make their living by selling articles and magazines and newsletters make their living through advertisers and the more readers they have the more they get through advertising.
There are other ways in which economics can distort the message that, sadly, can compromise the integrity of an otherwise accurate report on a health issue. an all too popular one is making recommendations for the use of particular products or services on the market. It's hard to find a health article these days where this doesn't happen or where, at the end if the article, the author doesn't end up plugging his or her new book or service. When that book or service is offered through the publisher of the article, it compromises the integrity of the publisher as well.
So how damaging are these practices? For the most part their affects are only mild to moderate in specific instances. Systemically, however, I believe they compromised the health reporting industry. Yes it is an industry it is a money-making sector of the economy but when people are making choices about their health be it in the things they consume, the products they use, or the practices they engage, the health reporting community has a responsibility to provide the most objective and balanced information they can. At the same time, consumers of their can do their part in cleaning things up as well.
So here are some specific suggestion. As for the health reporting community, I believe it would serve us all well if they eliminated any and all self-serving information embedded in the articles they publish. They are businesses and I do need advertising revenue but this can be done in an upfront manner without compromising the integrity of the information they provide. Practices might include eliminating plugs for particular books products or courses within the articles themselves. If it is the report that compares a number of products, for example sunscreens, the information on those products can be objectively presented and there's even room to make editorial recommendations as long as those editorial recommendations are done without any form of remuneration or compensation by the makers of those products.
The health reporting community can also take a positive approach two it's articles and eliminate fear-mongering from it's published products. Perhaps they would do well to have a trained scientist on their staff who can review claims made in articles to determine if they are truly scientifically warranted. Let's call it the Einstein Test. The bottom line is these are businesses they need to make money and they can through advertising but they can do so in a manner that does not compromise their integrity as an information provider. It may eliminate a few income streams, but it will increase their integrity and the value they provide to the reading community.
On the part of consumers we can have a major impact on the practices of the health reporting community by making informed choices of what we read and refuse to read, and making our choices known to them. When I cancelled my subscription to a health newsletter I mentioned earlier, I wrote a note indicating my reasons for doing so. I am considering cancelling my subscription to another health-related newsletter that has a lot of embedded advertising in its articles and I'm informing them why. Most importantly I think we can all benefit from becoming better lay scientists ourselves. When we read an article it would serve us well to pose the question, "is this really true?" We all like certainty in this uncertain world but when it comes to our health I think the degree of scientific scepticism is important. That sounds very dry and boring so let me rephrase it. When it comes to our health I believe thinking like Einstein is important.
Keep in mind that Einstein was as much a philosopher and mystic as he was a scientist so there is plenty of room to live in a very interesting if not magical world and still be a good scientist in your thinking. Another practice that may prove useful is to look for signs of compromised. Does the article recommend a specific product when it's not actually presenting the results of a scientific review of products? Does the article plug a course, a service, or a book? It's a viable and non-compromising practice to simply provide the author's name and to mention that he or she is the author of this or that book. That way people who are interested in learning more can look up the author and perhaps buy the book. It's a fine line between providing information that is justifiable and that which is simply self-serving, but we can all become very sensitized to the difference.
In summary the availability of information on our health is a great blessing these days. With it we can make informed choices about our health, but only if that information has not been compromised bye political or economic agendas. My hope for the health reporting industry is that it'll tighten up its game and refuse to compromise its objective integrity in the name of economics. My hope for the reading community is that it informs itself and becomes more sophisticated and its consumption of the information that uses to make healthy choices.
Happy reading...
G.S. Renfrey