Making medical journalism healthier.

Given how often the mass media reports stories about medicine, it is time to ask how well reporters cover the medical beat. Seen against a backdrop of soaring national drug costs and rising controversy over the pharmaceutical industry's influence within medicine, this evidence of biased media coverage demands attention and action. Alan Cassels and colleagues analyzed daily-newspaper stories from the year 2000 about five drugs--atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir, and raloxifene--all selected for their high profile in the media. Their most startling findings are that only 32 percent of the articles mentioned potentially harmful effects. Similarly, when paying for celecoxib was about to cause major financial burdens for public and private health-insurers worldwide, only 13 percent of stories covered the drug's cost. More systematic studies suggest that many stories about new medicines tend to overstate benefits, understate risks and costs, and fail to disclose relevant financial ties. Overly rosy coverage of drugs may also result from the direct and indirect relations between journalists and drug companies. Some receive all-expenses-paid international trips from drug companies, and some accept generous medical-media awards sponsored by drug companies. It is critical that the bias in health care reporting towards biomedical research is not reinforced in educational efforts, at the expense of opportunities to improve media coverage of health systems, health inequalities, and the social determinants of health.