Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 2004; 9: 259–60
The Science Media Centre is a London-based charity that aims to increase the public’s awareness of matters related to science. Professor Ernst was recently invited to attend one of its regular ‘press briefings’. The event took place on 2 August 2004 and about 20 journalists attended, including those from all the British broadsheet newspapers. Professor Ernst was given about 15 min to address his audience. He used this time to:
The presentation was followed by about 1 h of questions and discussion, which dealt with a wide range of issues. The journalists were also given three handouts:
Following the press briefing, the media interest was intense and about 20 radio interviews were given by Professor Ernst and Katja Schmidt during the two ensuing days. On 2 and 3 August, the print media, including Web-based media, published 20 articles that we presently know of. The following is a short analysis of this material.
None of the articles referred to the clinical trial of autogenic training showing that this treatment has positive effects in patients after coronary angioplasty.1 Six articles (30%) mentioned the second paper, a survey indicating that interactions between warfarin and herbal medicines are potentially a cause for concern.2 Four articles (20%) gave brief mentions of the fact that some complementary medicines have been proven to be effective.4 All articles (100%) focused on our third study, suggesting that a considerable proportion of Internet sites on CAM and cancer are potentially misleading for cancer patients.3 In many cases, this was done with alarmist headlines, for instance:
We also assessed the tone of all the press coverage. None of them (0%) was judged as ‘mainly positive’ (i.e. predominantly pointing out the benefits of CAM). Thirteen (65%) were deemed ‘balanced’. Seven (35%) were found to be ‘mainly negative’ (i.e. predominantly pointing out the risks of CAM).
This short analysis might suggest that the British media are selective in reporting ‘bad news’ about CAM. In particular, some of the headlines are disappointingly alarmist. It is important to note that, at the press briefing, Ernst was keen not to create a negative image of CAM and repeatedly referred to positive items (see above). His aim was to create a balanced picture of CAM.
Four years ago, the report by the House of Lords on CAM7 noted the ‘undue influence’ of the press on the public perception of CAM. The CAM movement is largely driven by the consumer, i.e. the public.8 The combination of these facts stresses the importance of objective reporting by the media. Yet objectivity does not seem to be the hallmark of the UK media regarding CAM. A previous analysis9 suggested them to be biased in favour of CAM. The present assessment implies the opposite. In truth, the media seem to want simple, unidirectional messages. Thus headlines like ‘alternative medicine cures cancer’ or ‘fatal dangers of herbal medicine’ prevail. On average, the former, positive messages seem to dominate.9
After many years of dealing with the press on almost a daily basis, we still find it exceedingly difficult to steer them towards more objectivity and to inspire them to show both sides of the coin, which invariably exist but are rarely reported. Journalists and researchers obviously have different interests and it is important for both sides to realise each other’s objectives as clearly as possible. We should try to put these differences to work so that they complement each other in providing a service from which the public can benefit.
