Science writers' reactions to a medical "breakthrough" story

In numerous incidences, the news coverage of medical research has incited unjustified optimism or fear. The medical literature provides an archive of the scientific community's condemnation of these misleading reports, but little is known about how they are judged by newsmakers. This study explored science writers' reactions to a controversial New York Times story that inflated the hopes of thousands of cancer patients. More than 60 science writers in the US, Canada, and Great Britain participated in a 12-day email discussion triggered by the Times article. We analyzed 255 of these email postings and coded (1) positive and negative critiques of the Times story, (2) references to the article's repercussions including the creation of false hope, (3) attributions of responsibility for the resulting public misunderstanding, and (4) suggestions to improve the public's comprehension of medical research news. The participating science writers generally responded negatively to the controversial article: 83% of the critiques were unfavorable. In addition, the science writers in the sample were cognizant and concerned about the impact of their work on the public, and accepted the largest share of the responsibility for the false hope created by the news coverage of medical research. Finally, the suggestions offered by respondents to improve the public's understanding of medical research news were similar to those proposed by the scientific community. Thus, some commonality exists between how scientists and science writers believe the news coverage of medical research could be improved.Medical journalism Science writers Media Public understanding Internet discussions

Life cycle of television public service announcements disseminated through donated airtime

Objective: To investigate the longevity and reach of television public service announcements (PSAs) developed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Screen for Life: National Colorectal Cancer Action Campaign. Methods: Television airtime donated to Screen for Life PSAs was tracked, and the impressions (a broadcasting metric for audience size) generated by PSAs in circulation ≥5 years were analyzed in 2014. The sample consisted of 8 PSAs, including English and Spanish PSAs, PSAs featuring celebrities, and PSAs redistributed multiple times after their initial release. Results: During the most recent year of circulation (5–9 years after initial release), each PSA generated 15.7 million to 251.7 million impressions. Peak annual impressions were achieved as late as 9 years after a PSA's initial release. When PSAs were redistributed 2 years or longer after the prior distribution, annual impressions increased over the preceding year by >20 million in 80.0% of instances. Among English PSAs, those featuring celebrities produced the highest mean and peak annual impressions. Conclusions: Donated-placement television PSAs can be a long-lived health promotion strategy. Redistribution may enhance PSA longevity, and featuring celebrities, particularly in English PSAs, may expand reach