Which aspect of poor media coverage do you think is most problematic?

Answer Explanations

• Other (please specify)

  user-885754
  The most problematic aspect of poor media coverage of science is the dissemination of misinformation and its significant impact on public health and safety. Misleading reports can lead to widespread public misunderstandings, resulting in poor health decisions, such as vaccine hesitancy, which can have dire consequences during a pandemic​ (FINN Partners -)​. Sensationalized coverage can exaggerate the significance of findings, causing unnecessary panic or false security. For instance, exaggerated risks of myocarditis from COVID-19 vaccines have overshadowed the more significant risks posed by the virus ​ (FINN Partners - https://www.finnpartners.com/news-insights/mad-science-media-coverage-and-misinformation/). Such misinformation can influence policy decisions and clinical practices prematurely, as seen with the drug Iressa, which was widely adopted before being proven ineffective​ (Ethics Journal - https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/media-miss-key-points-scientific-reporting/2007-03). Moreover, sensationalized media can perpetuate stigma and discrimination, notably in the portrayal of drug users, leading to harmful social and health outcomes​ (PsyPost - Psychology News - https://www.psypost.org/dehumanizing-media-portrayals-of-drug-users-worsen-stigma-and-discrimination-study-finds/). The spread of misinformation through poor media coverage undermines public trust in scientific institutions. It can have long-lasting adverse effects on society.
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-864887
  In fact, there should be an option for choosing more than one topic, perhaps even "all of the above". However, oversimplification of complex topics is probably the most problematic because of the above-mentioned modern prevalence of scientific journalists lacking actual research experience.
• Exaggeration of benefits

  user-987379
  The people who put out press releases, want to gain attention and traction. 
• Exaggeration of benefits

  user-557043
  In popular media, scientific breakthroughs are often discussed in terms of when will this breakthough benefit the general public.  The answers to this question is often very complex and the timeline for practical implementation of a scientific breakthrough for practical public benefit can be very innaccurate if the science is very new or very complex.
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-270255
  Statistical results must be reported in context of other findings. For example, a mortality rate for a specific disease could be given in context to other commonly known diseases, or total number of cases versus percentage of cases versus percentage of cases tested -- epidemiology in context.
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-606148
  really should be "all of the above"
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-755272
  There may be some accurate and accurate conclusions from a study, but if the reporters are not trained and professional in health reporting, they end up reporting like any other generic news.
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-967592
  Journalist try to explain research with their own understanding 
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-984299
  Ñ
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-265612
  Misrepresentation of study conclusions to the people on social media.
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-52919
  Almost a combination of all the options given
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-743452
   The misrepresentation of study conclusions is the most problematic aspect of poor media coverage because it fundamentally distorts the intended message of scientific research. When study conclusions are misrepresented, the public receives inaccurate information about what the research actually found, which can lead to widespread misunderstandings and incorrect beliefs. This misrepresentation can also amplify biases, perpetuate myths, and influence decision-making in ways that are not supported by the actual evidence. For example, misreporting the effectiveness or safety of medical treatments can directly impact public health decisions and policy-making. Furthermore, it can damage the credibility of researchers and institutions, making it harder for future findings to be trusted and accepted. In sum, accurately conveying study conclusions is essential for maintaining the integrity of scientific communication and ensuring that public perception aligns with scientific reality. 
• Exaggeration of benefits

  user-246431
  makes things unsustainable in the long run
• Other (please specify)

  user-633316
  Nothing
• Other (please specify)

  user-895401
  All of the choices made are important because each of them has an impact in a meaningful direction
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-696023
  The first two topics apply to toxicvology (2nd) and pharmacology (1st). Oversimplification may appear but for lay people scientific thinking has to be sismplified.
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-532952
  Often journalists don't understand the  science and manufacture headlines
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-728133
  Exaggerated risk and befits are also problematic in some cases
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-830315
  Coming from Italy, I think that usually there are a lot of fake news on medical malpractice, where the doctors did not perform any kind of malpractice. People have the feeling that medicine is an exact science, when is not
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-214851
  Scientific findings are not the only issue in studies. Most studies discuss their limitations and biases. Often, media coverage does not include many such issues in the coverage.
  Science reporters do a much better job than the average reporter.
• Other (please specify)

  user-887652
  Exaggeration in general, but maybe primarily exaggeration of certainty, overgeneralization, and the tendency to fawn over charismatic individuals. None of those things can be blamed purely on media.
• Other (please specify)

  user-768135
  Biased conclusions against interdisciplinary researchers. And slimplipy the complex systems in "cartoon" examples.
• Other (please specify)

  user-433549
  Publishing information with unreliable conflicts of interest
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-133885
  the study design of the primary article was poor to begin with but then the misrepresentation made it sound better and the conclusion tighter than it was and social media hyped the conclusions to make it sound like a solid conclusion
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-489806
  Journalists often latch on to a finding that supports their narrative, yet silently ignore findings that do otherwise.
• Other (please specify)

  user-242774
  My BIG criticism of MOST media coverage of chemicals and their known/potential relationship to human health is that the media ONLY focus on HAZARD (TOXICITY) of the chemical and NOT focus  the RISK of developing one or more of the stated health hazards (based on the intrinsic ability of the chemical to cause adverse health effects).  True, we do not want hazardous/toxic chemicals in out air, water, products, etc. BUT the very important detail Media does NOT focus on is the RISK.  Risk = Hazard x Exposure.  They never bring exposure into the equation.  The dose make the poison.  In my opinion, the media is doing a very larger disservice not only to citizens but and science (toxicology, etc.) by not giving what is important and the whole story!
  
  
  
  
  
  
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-902187
  Both exaggeration of benefits and risks depending on the study 
• Exaggeration of benefits

  user-176904
  a brief discussion of the evidence supporting the note and the limitations that a diet, ingredient, or treatment might have. It also does not cover the fact that such research takes years to conduct and requires more support and time to continue.
• Exaggeration of risks

  user-822867
  Fear brings lot of negativity and problems in the society 
• Exaggeration of benefits

  user-740332
  Often the original articles do not go as far as the media headlines
• Exaggeration of risks

  user-484519
  also oversimplification. 
• Exaggeration of risks

  user-298485
  It isn’t even exaggeration of risks or oversimplification of information, it is just completely failure to understand the actual risk involved and then sensationalize and oversimplify from there. 
• Exaggeration of risks

  user-377267
  The exaggeration of risks is a major tool used by media to gain attention and generate the impression of importance. The widespread fear of being 'intoxicated' by chemicals including plant protection products is a result of such falsified evidence.
• Exaggeration of benefits

  user-561710
  both exaggeration of benefits and of risks are catastrophic. look at the roundup debacle, it is clear that based on the big NIH study there really is no risk for the average roundup user. but the fact they lost that lawsuit has made everybody panic.
  on the flip side, it is quite evident that the covid vaccines had no real clear benefits for 90% of the population. probably the risk outweighed the benefits in most cases. but media spun that to get their ad dollars.
• Oversimplification of complex topics

  user-355607
  It may lead to false interpretation of diseases that demand thorough assessments
• Misrepresentation of study conclusions

  user-753537
  including exaggeration of either benefits or risks. 
  =exaggeration of the strength of evidence (causality) and the size of the effects
• Exaggeration of risks

  user-477751
  In my field (toxicology), exaggerated risks based on hazard assessment only generate fear/litigation/ unnecessary costs for remediation etc