Letters
Volume 184 - Issue 9

Australia's media reporting of health and medical matters: a question of quality

Authors:  Ruth M Armstrong and Martin B Van Der Weyden

Med J Aust 2006; 184 (9): 479-480. || doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00335.x
Published online: 1 May 2006
Download PDF (510 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

In reply: Would that we could convince newspaper editors not to publish inaccurate stories, cabinet leaks, sensational and one-sided details of trials in progress, hope-raising interim football scores or the details of celebrity weddings. However, our media package was not that ambitious!

In the context of medical reporting, we stand by our advice against publishing interim results. The reason that clinical trials have protocols, power calculations and stopping rules is that (just as football is a game of two halves) the results are really not relevant or reliable until all the data have been collected and analysed.

Our media package included contributions from two highly respected medical writers1,2 and a representative of Australian journalism’s peak body.3

Robotham is correct in surmising that we did not approach a newsroom health reporter or a news editor, but the immunisation analogy seems spurious. If we published a research paper that identified, for instance, deficiencies in general practitioners’ delivery of vaccinations, we would not necessarily accompany it with a commentary from a GP. Whatever their discipline, we would assign the task to someone who could point the way towards best practice.

Nevertheless, we are grateful for Robotham’s interest and acknowledge the responsibilities shared by both journalists and medical journal editors, albeit with differing emphasis — the dissemination of accurate and timely information.

Authors

  • Ruth M Armstrong BMed1
  • Martin B Van Der Weyden MD, FRACP, PhD1

Correspondence: medjaust@ampco.com.au

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library