Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news

Sumner, Petroc ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0536-0510, Vivian-Griffiths, Solveiga, Boivin, Jacky ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9498-1708, Williams, Andy ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9603-4309, Bott, Lewis ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4926-1231, Adams, Rachel Charlotte ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-0671, Venetis, Christos A., Whelan, Leanne, Hughes, Bethan and Chambers, Christopher D. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6058-4114 2016. Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news. PloS One 11 (12) , e0168217. 10.1371/journal.pone.0168217

Preview

PDF - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background Exaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored. Methods and Findings Using quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature. Conclusions For health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Journalism, Media and Culture Psychology
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Publisher:	Public Library of Science
ISSN:	1932-6203
Funders:	ESRC
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	8 December 2016
Date of Acceptance:	7 December 2016
Last Modified:	10 May 2023 18:31
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/96718

Citation Data

Cited 80 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item