Health news can inform and empower the public, but pressure on journalists to boost engagement can lead to sensationalism.

Oversimplification, cherry-picking of data and a lack of context in health news can impact public understanding and trust in science.

Journalists can use five strategies to communicate scientific news in a way that’s both ethical and engaging.

In an era of information overload, health news often arrives in a deluge, with headlines vying for our attention. While the goal of scientific journalism is to inform and empower, the pressure for engagement can lead to sensationalism – an overemphasis on dramatic or alarming aspects of research. This frequently manifests as oversimplification, cherry-picking of data and a concerning lack of context, which impacts public understanding and trust in science.

Cherry-picking data to focus on results that support a particular narrative, while ignoring contradictory evidence, is another hallmark of sensationalism in health news. The controversy surrounding the Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm provides a stark example. FDA approval relied on the drug’s ability to reduce amyloid plaques, a biomarker for Alzheimer’s disease, despite inconsistent evidence of actual cognitive improvement in patients from two prematurely terminated trials. Critics argued this was a case of selecting a surrogate endpoint over clear clinical benefit – a nuance often lost in initial “breakthrough” narratives.

A lack of context also often accompanies sensational health news, presenting findings without adequate explanation of research methods, limitations or the broader scientific understanding. Some reports on H5N1 bird flu, for example, used fear appeal, even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says risk to the general public is low for H5N1. While raising awareness of potential threats is important, such framing can incite panic if it’s not balanced with clear risk assessments for the general public and information on protective measures.

By avoiding these pitfalls journalists can sidestep sensationalism to deliver health news that informs and empowers the public through science reporting that is both ethical and engaging.

The ripple effect of harmful headlines

The consequences of prioritizing audience numbers over factual integrity are far-reaching. Perhaps the most damaging is the erosion of public trust in official health authorities.

Image: Ian Chew using data from the KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust.

The long shadow of the debunked “MMR vaccine causes autism” scare, originating from Andrew Wakefield’s fraudulent 1998 study, persists despite overwhelming scientific refutation. Headlines like “Vaccine misinformation spreads as children head back to school” report on a real problem, but can inadvertently convince the public to accept the disproven link. This can contribute to vaccine hesitancy and outbreaks of preventable diseases.

Sensationalism can also fuel public panic or, conversely, complacency. It can lead to harmful health decisions, such as self-medication with inappropriate drugs or misinterpretation of the risks and benefits of new pharmaceuticals.

The importance of responsible health news

Science journalists bear a profound responsibility to both the public and the scientific community. Their duty is to translate complex information accurately, provide necessary context and empower informed decision-making – not to merely amplify the loudest or most alarming claims.

This is increasingly challenging in a media landscape where algorithms often reward extreme content and the 24-hour news cycle demands immediacy, however. So, here are five strategies health journalists can use to communicate scientific findings in a way that’s both ethical and engaging:

1. Provide clarity without oversimplification

Plain language is crucial for accessibility, but this should not come at the cost of nuance. As the World Health Organization (WHO) principles for effective communication state, messages must be understandable, but also accurate and actionable. It’s vital to contextualise findings as emerging research, clearly distinguishing correlation from causation and avoiding definitive claims that could cause undue fear.

2. Give the full context

When reporting on health news, journalists must explain research methodologies, limitations and where a particular finding sits within the broader scientific landscape. This includes discussing the preliminary nature of some studies and the slow, iterative process of scientific discovery.

3. Write with transparency and honesty

Acknowledging uncertainties, potential conflicts of interest and the evolving nature of scientific understanding can actually build more trust in health news than feigning absolute certainty.

4. Understand and engage your audience

Effective communication involves knowing the audience’s existing beliefs, cultural context and health literacy levels. The “Know Your Lemons” campaign uses visual metaphors (lemons for breasts) to explain the 12 signs of breast cancer. It successfully overcame literacy and cultural taboos to reach more than 1.85 billion people and demonstrably improve early detection rates.

5. Use ethical framing and focus on solutions

While highlighting risks is sometimes necessary, health news should also offer actionable advice and messages of hope to prevent fatalism or anxiety. Headlines like “The black maternal health crisis is getting worse” or “Half of world’s population endured extra month of extreme heat due to climate change” are justified in their urgency given the severe disparities and impacts stories like these detail. However, such reports are most empowering when they also detail systemic causes and pathways to solutions, such as policy changes and community-led initiatives.

Loading…

Building integrity in health news

Sensationalism in health journalism is driven by the chase for clicks and views, ultimately disservicing the public. It can distort understanding, erode trust and lead to poor health decisions.

The challenge for science journalism is to make complex health information engaging and accessible without sacrificing accuracy or ethical responsibility. Both parties – scientists and journalists – must work together to ensure rigorous verification, contextualisation and a deep understanding of the audience for health news. These processes could even be sped up with the use of automation.