Dear Richard,
Thanks for forwarding the UN article.
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/communicating-health-research-109-five-...
I would like to comment on the first point:
"1. Stop being so (overly) dramatic. According to UNESCO, and studies carried out by the Thomson Reuters Institute, the doom and gloom narrative can also make some people simply turn off and lose interest."
The same point can be made about the communication of health research, relevant to our current discussion.
We have noted the importance of the mass media in the commuication of health research, not only for the general public but also for policymakers. It is clear to anyone who watches TV, listens to the radio or reads a newspaper that we have a HUGE problem here. The mass media shapes public (and policymaker) opinion and yet reporting of health research in the media is very often inaccurate, incomplete, biased, misleading, and ultimately damaging to individual understanding, trus in science, health policy and health outcomes.
What can be done to address this issue? We need to better understand why it is such a big problem. One aspect is that the media's motivation is largely to make profits, to exert influence, or at least attract the largest possible audience. A headline that honestly says "Studies have not established the effect of chocolate on breast cancer" is less likely to 'sell' than one that says misleadingly "Chocolate causes breast cancer".
A second aspect is that researchers themselves, and the research institutions and communication teams that support them, can overemphasise the importance and interpretation of their research. This can be further distorted by the journalist copywriters who change the wording for dramatic effect. For example, "A is associated with B" is not qualified with an explanation of the possible causes of the association or, worse, it is misreported as "A causes B".
What are the implications in terms of research communication? First, I believe there should be much more political and financial investment in understanding the causes of misreporting in the media and what can be done to improve it. Second, journalist and researcher professional associations should lead the conversation on how to imporve the quality of research communication and restore trust in science. Third, high-quality support and training should be made readily available to journalists and researchers, together with incentives to report more honestly and with less bias.
What do you think?
Best wishes, Neil
Joint Coordinator, HIFA Communicating health research https://www.hifa.org/projects/new-effective-communication-health-researc...
Let's build a future where every person has access to reliable healthcare information and is protected from misinformation - Join HIFA: www.hifa.org
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of the HIFA global health movement (Healthcare Information For All - www.hifa.org ), a global community with more than 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting on six global forums in four languages in collaboration with WHO. HIFA brings stakeholders together to accelerate progress towards universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK based non-profit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Twitter: @hifa_org neil@hifa.org
