13.33, 8 January 2010
I know there are researchers out there who really want to discover truths that are beneficial to humankind and journalists who want to convey their messages and findings to the masses. But what we should all take heed of are the implications of what is said and the accuracy and meaning of the words used.
A cure is discovered for a disease, then we all want to know how and what’s been established and the truth behind the claim, but I warn of ‘dressing up’ a finding to increase its media longevity. We all know that there are journalists out there taking a ill-thought out comment and implicating it into a wholly fictitious story, but researchers really need to be absolutely clear whether a bold statement they are making is really and truly supported by the study they have conducted, especially as the interpretation of their comments is sometimes made by a non-medical wordsmith with a deadline to meet and a publication to sell.
You may wonder where this has all come from? I’m talking about the recent breastfeeding/formula milk debate that has been reignited, thanks to a group of Norwegian researchers. The main statement that several newspapers jumped on was from Professor Sven Carlsen: ‘Baby formula is as good as breastmilk.’ This was interpreted as breastmilk is no better for babies than formula, and so headlines read: ‘Is breast really best?’ ‘Breastfeeding is best myth ‘busted’’. The stories that ensued presented conflicting arguments and were wholly confusing. If they were meant to prompt debate, even anger, then the posted online comments revealed that they were definitely successful, but if they were meant to provide a clear picture of the study review, then they failed. Did they sensationalise? Yes. Did they aim to get people to jump on another bandwagon? Most probably. In anyone’s rational mind, the natural production of a mother’s milk must always have benefits over and above any synthetic replica. It doesn’t take a genius to work that one out. And I think if a mother chooses to do this and is able, then it’s the best start for a baby, but if she can’t and doesn’t want to, then that’s also fine, because it is ultimately a woman’s choice. What we don’t need is a message being morphed into a sensationalised, scaremongering, confusion-causing hype. It ultimately dumbs down the research and the publication that disseminates it. If you can’t convey this message appropriately, then what other information is being conveyed inappropriately? Why not read our
news story on it?
Add a comment to this blog posting
Comments are added to the bottom of blog postings. They are moderated and will not be published until approved by the Midwives team. They may be edited.
