Responsibility when covering health issues
Time and again we have emphasized the importance of responsible journalism on this page. The need for mentioning it was different each time, yet the core principles remained the same. Most recently, we mentioned its importance on June 8 due to possible bodily harm that can result from a hastily published news article. This time, we have a larger, more thoroughly prepared series of articles, yet the potential damage is no less important.
When we look at the coverage of health issues in media, there are basically two problems that continue to persist throughout years. First is something we call snake-oil journalism, a type of coverage that sells hope, placebo and pseudoscience as a definitive hope to readers. We covered the issue on Oct. 13, 2014, here in a more extensive manner with the same headline. The second problem we see is the fear mongering when dealing with epidemics, diseases without cures et cetera. Most of these fears are unfounded and only serve as a clickbait for fearful readers. For further reading on this subject you might want to see the Nov. 3, 2014 dated article with "Fear mongering in media" title. Daily Sabah so far has been doing a good job when covering health and lifestyle issues with the help of a professional, Dr. Halit Yerebakan. Therefore we never had a legitimate reason to revisit the subject, but the latest report from another newspaper compels us to step in.
Last week, an article in the Radikal daily caused much controversy in both social and conventional media as well as academia. It was titled "Bir çocuk daha yapacak olsam hiçbir aşıyı yaptırmazdım" and it translates: "If I were to give birth to another child, I would not vaccinate them." The date of publication of the article prepared by Bahar Çuhadar was July 14. The article was in interview format, and the title itself was a quote from those interviews.
First of all, let us look at the people Çuhadar interviewed. The two people in the article share the two similarities of being mothers and having a university diploma. The first person has a degree in English literature and the second in biology. It appears neither of them is qualified to be an authority on the subject of vaccination. This was the first point of criticism Çuhadar received from many readers. I have to say I agree with them. As a concerned party, mothers have a say in this controversy, but that does not justify painting anti-vaccination in a favorable light by giving them an outlet to share unscientific methods of observation.
The second point of criticism was surrounding the remarks of one of the mothers who supports homoeopathy, a form of alternative medicine. Giving benefit of the doubt to a pseudoscience such as homoeopathy, while being against vaccination without a scientific basis raises a lot of eyebrows. On an individual scale, this behavior may only concern the immediate party, but if it is legitimized via interviews of its supporters without any hard yet necessary questions, this contradicts the principles of responsible journalism.
Today, we see that the anti-vaccination movement is stronger than ever. Not to mention many families are indeed on the fence as to whether or not they should vaccinate their children and spend many hours consulting doctors and researching related articles on the web. With this in mind, featuring an interview with an anti-vaccination supporter and providing little to no scientific input or a balancing factor from the pro-vaccination front can go a long way in the decision-making process for those families, a decision that can possibly have horrible consequences.
While the series of articles promises to also provide views of those who support vaccination, the criticism is still valid, as the two people interviewed are not qualified to participate at this level.
Lastly, here is my two cents on the subject. While discussions on vaccination are featured heavily in the media, this is not the platform in which the argument will be resolved. In other words, science should be left to scientists. By reporting on half-truths, pseudoscience and unscientific methods without proper background and warning, the media has more effect on the health decisions of parents and patients than it has any right to.
When we look at the coverage of health issues in media, there are basically two problems that continue to persist throughout years. First is something we call snake-oil journalism, a type of coverage that sells hope, placebo and pseudoscience as a definitive hope to readers. We covered the issue on Oct. 13, 2014, here in a more extensive manner with the same headline. The second problem we see is the fear mongering when dealing with epidemics, diseases without cures et cetera. Most of these fears are unfounded and only serve as a clickbait for fearful readers. For further reading on this subject you might want to see the Nov. 3, 2014 dated article with "Fear mongering in media" title. Daily Sabah so far has been doing a good job when covering health and lifestyle issues with the help of a professional, Dr. Halit Yerebakan. Therefore we never had a legitimate reason to revisit the subject, but the latest report from another newspaper compels us to step in.
Last week, an article in the Radikal daily caused much controversy in both social and conventional media as well as academia. It was titled "Bir çocuk daha yapacak olsam hiçbir aşıyı yaptırmazdım" and it translates: "If I were to give birth to another child, I would not vaccinate them." The date of publication of the article prepared by Bahar Çuhadar was July 14. The article was in interview format, and the title itself was a quote from those interviews.
First of all, let us look at the people Çuhadar interviewed. The two people in the article share the two similarities of being mothers and having a university diploma. The first person has a degree in English literature and the second in biology. It appears neither of them is qualified to be an authority on the subject of vaccination. This was the first point of criticism Çuhadar received from many readers. I have to say I agree with them. As a concerned party, mothers have a say in this controversy, but that does not justify painting anti-vaccination in a favorable light by giving them an outlet to share unscientific methods of observation.
The second point of criticism was surrounding the remarks of one of the mothers who supports homoeopathy, a form of alternative medicine. Giving benefit of the doubt to a pseudoscience such as homoeopathy, while being against vaccination without a scientific basis raises a lot of eyebrows. On an individual scale, this behavior may only concern the immediate party, but if it is legitimized via interviews of its supporters without any hard yet necessary questions, this contradicts the principles of responsible journalism.
Today, we see that the anti-vaccination movement is stronger than ever. Not to mention many families are indeed on the fence as to whether or not they should vaccinate their children and spend many hours consulting doctors and researching related articles on the web. With this in mind, featuring an interview with an anti-vaccination supporter and providing little to no scientific input or a balancing factor from the pro-vaccination front can go a long way in the decision-making process for those families, a decision that can possibly have horrible consequences.
While the series of articles promises to also provide views of those who support vaccination, the criticism is still valid, as the two people interviewed are not qualified to participate at this level.
Lastly, here is my two cents on the subject. While discussions on vaccination are featured heavily in the media, this is not the platform in which the argument will be resolved. In other words, science should be left to scientists. By reporting on half-truths, pseudoscience and unscientific methods without proper background and warning, the media has more effect on the health decisions of parents and patients than it has any right to.
Last Update: July 19, 2015 22:50