To What Extent Can the Media Be Trusted?
On average, we spend almost 8 hours a day on media (Watson, 2020), so naturally we are bound to absorb some information from the various outlets we use. But the question is, to what extent can we trust what is published in the media?
As an example, we will be discussing a topic related to the COVID-19 pandemic: the first COVID-19 vaccine that was produced in Russia.
To put this to the test, my colleague (A.S.) and I conducted a media review that initially began as an assignment for our 'Policy & Decision-making in Healthcare' course as part of our MPH course requirements. The media review was conducted with a one week time-frame that started from the first day the Russian vaccine, Sputnik V, was officially registered (August 11th, 2020). Looking into international, regional, and local (Lebanon) media outlets, we gathered a total of 144 articles from 17 different media sources*. The highest number of articles were published on the same day the vaccine was registered; and then a gradual decline was witnessed over time. On August 15th, however, a spike in the articles was seen again.
Figure 1: The process of choosing articles to review.
Figure 2: Number of articles published in a one week time-frame.
Why this variation in number of articles published?
Well, results of the review revealed that very little information was disseminated regarding the vaccine after the first day of registration, and that is where the decline was observed. However, on the 15th, Russia had announced that it had began producing the vaccine (Sputnik V) in large quantities to be distributed to the public, which stirred the media to discuss the vaccine again. What was more interesting was looking into how these articles were written.
How did the Media Frame this Vaccine?
As seen in the chart above, almost two thirds of the 144 articles reviewed framed it neutrally. What do we mean by neutral? Well, it is basically when the news is told as it is, and no clear opinion or taking sides is seen in the writing.
But this is major news! A COVID-19 vaccine that can finally eradicate the pandemic! Why are we still taking sides?
Looking into each individual article, it was apparent that the majority of the articles had simply reiterated the information that the Russian government had disclosed regarding the vaccine. There was no other information pertaining to the vaccine mentioned in the article, since the Russian government had in fact not disclosed any further information about it. But what about the role of scientific evidence in media? We will come back to this in a bit.
The 24% of articles that had negatively framed the news of the vaccine were considered negative due to criticism of the Russian vaccine. It is worth noting, however, that the majority of the media outlets criticizing the vaccine were outlets known to belong to entities/countries that are against Russia politically. The remaining 17% of articles that had positively framed news of the vaccine were considered those that had positive opinions on the vaccine and its potentiality at eradicating the pandemic.
So as you can see, articles can be framed and written in different ways, and this has the potential to influence the way we process the information and perceive it, in addition to even changing our behavior (Wakefield, Loken, & Hornick, 2010). This is where we come back to the role of scientific evidence in media. The issue does not lie in what kind opinions us as individuals form; the issue lies in who the information we realize comes from. Why, you might ask?
The news that we read should be based on sound, scientific evidence that would allow us to logically form our own individual opinion- not that based on someone else's opinion. Shockingly, results from the vaccine review revealed that a mere 17% of the articles had mentioned the author's name, and almost 70% of the articles' only source of evidence was based 'expert opinion'. Sound familiar? Opinion.
How can we be sure of who these experts are? Are they even in the public health/medical field in order to formulate opinions based on sound evidence and inform the public? The only way we can be sure that these opinions are valid is knowing who these experts are and their domains, as well as what the rationale behind their opinion is. This includes which studies were looked at, whether it was only based on their personal experiences, and if they were, if they mentioned studies in attempt to support their opinion (Burton, 2020). Only after we understand why these opinions were formed are we able to subsequently form our own individual opinions.
This is why it is crucial to address the responsibility of the media to strengthen its background research before publishing articles, and ensuring that the information used, whether based on articles or experts, is thoroughly based on real, sound evidence that can be traced back to the source of reference. In this way, we can reduce the effects of misinformation and bias disseminated to the public, which in turn reinforces public trust in the entities concerned with the news.
Until next time,
S.
*Media outlets: BBC, The Daily Mail, Euronews, France24, Reuters, The Moscow Times, Al Jazeera, Al Arabia, Sky News Arabia, Annahar, LBC, Al Mayadeen, Al Mustaqbal, L'Orient Le Jour, The Daily Star, Al Manar, & MTV.
Comments
Post a Comment