The measles outbreak that started at Disneyland and has now spread to 14 states including Colorado offers key lessons for journalists:
First, some rightward-leaning commentators and contributors appear to be allergic to science.
Second, it’s the duty of reporters not only to present truth, but also to specifically avoid “balancing” scientific fact with minority opinion.
We’re seeing another round in the war between science and superstition, with some media personalities boosting the “anti-vaxxers” at a time when public health officials are trying to get the scientific word out. Academics who teach science and medical reporting to journalism students have a few thoughts to guide the mainstream media.
In short: Acknowledge the comments of Rand Paul and Chris Christie on the subject, based on anecdote, but stress that science doesn’t support their fears of vaccinations. And move on. Don’t make it a “balanced,” two-sided story when there really is only one scientifically confirmed side.
There’s no shortage of sound journalistic reports on and his 1998 study, retracted by the medical journal The Lancet. Still, fear is contagious. (The Denver Post this week reported that in the nation.) Misguided statements by media personalities like ABC News’ Laura Ingraham and Fox News’ Sean Hannity can’t help; alarming graphics on CNN can’t either, although they did fuel a Jon Stewart segment on “Les Measerables.” (He blamed “science-denying affluent California liberals.”)
More seriously, academics who study the pitfalls of science reporting by the media offer prescriptions for how to avoid repeating mistakes and misinformation.
Tom Linden, a medical doctor and director of the Medical and Science Journalism Master’s Program at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said via e-mail that most news outlets are behaving responsibly.
“Of late, responsible news media have been deferring to the scientific consensus that there is no proven link between administering the measles/mumps/rubella vaccine (MMR) and autism. A 2011 report from the Institute of Medicine found no link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Major news organizations like The New York Times have followed the lead of the Institute of Medicine in rejecting misinformation spread by some about how childhood vaccines — and measles/mumps/rubella, in particular — lead to childhood autism. Most of the media are doing a good job. The problem is when some in the media become an echo chamber for non-scientific claims that have not been peer-reviewed and have not been published in reputable medical or science journals.”
Linden said he teaches his medical- and science-journalism students that “it’s their responsibility to report the preponderant scientific consensus on topics they cover, including the vaccine controversy.”
Specifically, ” I advise them to avoid “he said/she said” stories that give non-scientific proponents equal weight with experts in the field.”
The problem isn’t just a couple of outliers with large followings, but a worrisome trend, Linden believes.
“The dangerous trend is that for a number of issues — like climate change and vaccines, to give two examples — personal opinions and political agendas sometimes trump good science.”
The goal of even-handedness, of giving equal weight to pros and cons on a story, works for many issues journalists tackle. It doesn’t work for near-unanimously confirmed scientific fact versus hunches.
Joanne Ostrow: 303-954-1830, jostrow@denverpost.com or twitter.com/ostrowdp
