Unhealthy Coverage: How the Media Loses Its Way

The media's sensationalistic approach to health care coverage weakens reproductive health reporting, too.

"Blaming the media" is
a catch-phrase that is used in almost cliché-level proportions. But
when it comes to health care, a new study indicates it may be appropriate to fault media coverage for a lack of public knowledge about
health care policy — and by extension the false perception of reproductive
rights as ideological "hot rods" rather than women’s health concerns.  

A recently-released Pew Research study conducted with the Kaiser Family Foundation
monitored health coverage from January 2007 to June 2008 to determine
which subjects got the most coverage, and in which media. The study
was designed to be particularly broad-ranging–rather than, for instance,
analyzing how TV news covers breast cancer, the study looked at how
television, radio, print, online outlets and other forms of media covered
everything heath-related, from specific diseases to health policy and
more.

What were the results? According
to the report, "News about health occupies a relatively small amount
of American news coverage across all platforms: 3.6% of news during
2007 and the first half of 2008." In a list of most frequently covered
topics, health came in eighth–far above religion, education
and celebrities, but below the economy, crime, foreign affairs and politics.  

These results, while hardly
thrilling, don’t seem abysmal at first. Health gets more coverage
than celebrities, after all, which seems like a victory in our current
climate. But compounding the small amount of attention devoted to health,
the breakdown within existing health coverage shows a tendency
to focus on controversial or sensational aspects of health issues, leaving
vital policy information behind. One need only to think about the extreme
health stories on the nightly news (Are your pills contaminated? Are
your children at risk from a rare strain of X?) to understand the crux
of the problem. Why focus on the actual public ramifications
of various diseases and policies when Jenny
McCarthy and Amanda Peet are going at it over autism
? Or we can lure people in front of
the TV by frightening them?  

This is a situation only too
familiar to reproductive health advocates, who often see the public health crises caused
by lack of reproductive health care submerged beneath the kind of pitched battles
or titillating stories the media loves.  

Within the small percentage
of health news, outlets focused 41.7% on specific diseases, the kind
of coverage which spikes somewhat when a celebrity like Elizabeth Edwards,
Tony Snow, or Tim Russert has cancer or a heart attack. Public health
issues made up 30.9% of coverage, including stories like the tuberculosis-infected man-on-plane scandal,
and reports on gossipy health problems like binge drinking.  

Coming in third, actual health
policy made up only 24.7% of general "health" coverage–and this
includes the political battles during the primaries and the SCHIP vote.
Considering that the American health care system is essentially broken,
this is a dismal indicator: as the report notes, that means that health
policy news made up less than 1% of media coverage during the
time period. This is not to say that other aspects of health care coverage
are unimportant (certainly, diseases and public health issues are probably
not covered deeply enough), but instead that sensational and celebrity-oriented
slants to health stories often obscure the practical health issues that
affect media consumers’ lives.  

An example of this is the fact
that HIV/AIDS stories made up only 2.2% of stories related to health,
even though misinformation
about the (still very much present) disease persists
, and dissemination of accurate information
is crucial to preventing its transmission.  

Newsflash: RH Issues Are
Health Issues
 

The lack of coverage when it
comes to HIV/AIDS is emblematic of a general failure when it comes to
the portrayal of sexual health and reproductive rights in the news media.  

In our scandal and controversy-oriented news culture, reproductive health issues are treated as controversial flashpoints
or political footballs rather than genuine public and personal health
crises. Many media personalities and reporters caught on to fact that
there is a connection between ideology and health during John McCain’s
infamous placing of "air quotes" around the word "women’s health"
during a debate–but there has been little follow up on that connection.  

One example of the way the
discussion is turned away from health and towards "morality" is
the firestorm over the HHS regulations that would allow providers
to "opt out" of medical procedures they find objectionable.

In focusing on the consciences and internal struggles of health care providers,
rather than the difficulty women have accessing proper care, the media
does more damage than it possibly can be aware of.  

Last month in Slate, Melinda Hennenberger offered an egregious
example of this: she spun a piece about the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that
would expand women’s access to reproductive care and abortion, into
an assault on the moral consciences of Catholics. Presto — a bill meant
to protect women’s health becomes an ideological war on the Catholic
church. A juicier story, but a misleading one.  

Rewire refuted Hennenberger’s factual speculation
and even her colleague Dahlia Lithwick reminded
readers
that women’s health hangs in the balance, and often gets lost
in the shuffle, when this question is debated.  

An example of how to address reproductive health issues in a non-sensational, health-based manner is Rachel Maddow’s
recent interview with Melissa Harris Lacewell, which was also discussed
on this site
. The
most remarkable thing about the interview was that rather than being
framed as a left-right battle royal, the priority of women’s health
needs was acknowledged by both interviewer and interviewee, and was
the jumping off point for their discussion rather than the conclusion. They still managed to talk for a long time, and it was even interesting!

There is a market for sensible,
factual health coverage because it affects people’s lives. It’s a
wonder that so many arbiters of what’s "news" have yet to discover
that. Framing reproductive health issues from a public health perspective, and boosting coverage of health care policy, are absolutely crucial to changing the
frame on reproductive rights back to what it’s really about: women’s
access to the care they need.