Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (22259)	12/31/2003 8:34:57 AM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 793705

Mad Cow and the Media By David Ropeik The writer is with the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Wednesday, December 31, 2003; Page A19 washingtonpost.com The coverage of mad cow disease is demonstrating the tendency for reporters and editors to play up the dramatic, the frightening and the controversial aspects of risk stories, and to play down or omit altogether information that puts the risk in perspective. This fans public fears and drives demands that the government spend time and money protecting us from risks that aren't as big as such coverage leads us to believe. Consider Monday's newspapers. The front pages of the New York Times, The Washington Post and many other newspapers reported that "Cow's Meat Reached Retailers in Eight States"[The Post, Dec. 29]. Why is this front-page news, given that the overwhelming scientific evidence, developed from years of rigorous testing in Britain at the height of the epidemic there, shows that meat is not infectious? The Post story, in paragraph two, reports: "In the strongest indication so far that significant amounts of meat have been eaten, about 100 consumers have called U.S. Department of Agriculture hotlines to say they have consumed the recalled meat and are worried about their health." In the sixth paragraph, The Post finally reports that there is no known risk from eating the meat. The New York Times waits three paragraphs before offering this reassurance. A Monday story in the Wall Street Journal, "Scientific Data Offer No Proof of Beef Safety," says that "the scientific evidence behind those claims [that beef is not a risk material] isn't as certain." In the first 18 paragraphs, the story raises doubts based on initial findings that infectious prions, the misshapen protein believed to spread the disease, have been found in muscle meat in hamsters and mice, before describing the extensive and careful scientific testing in Britain that failed to show any evidence that meat from cows can spread the disease. Finally, consider that in 2001 a study by our center at Harvard found that if mad cow disease occurred in the American cattle herd, the chance that it would spread to other animals or pose a threat to human health is extraordinarily low. This is because of the feed ban. Even with incomplete compliance, this ban keeps the disease from expanding through the herd, all but eliminating the chance that infected material will reach our tables. An isolated case, or several, is possible. But a large-scale threat to animals or humans is highly unlikely. Yet this important perspective has barely been mentioned by the major news outlets in America. Of more than 40 stories in the Wall Street Journal as of Dec. 29, only one mentioned the study, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom. In 38 stories in The Post, the results were cited in the last three paragraphs of a single story. USA Today has run 40 stories on this case of mad cow disease and mentioned these results just once. The Associated Press, Reuters and network television have all given similarly scant notice to this important part of the mad cow story. And the New York Times has not described these results once. But the coverage has been rich with quotes from critics, who are given much more space and more prominent locations within the stories, hypothesizing that this is "the tip of the iceberg" (almost certainly not), that "we should test every animal before its meat is sent to market" (although meat is almost certainly not a risk), and that "the actual regulations themselves are not protecting the American consumer." (They are, though perhaps not as much as they could.) These are important voices to include. But so is careful, peer-reviewed science. The news media frequently play up elements of risk stories that evoke fear and controversy, and play down or leave out information that ameliorates that fear or controversy. I was a television journalist for 25 years. I did this myself. I plead guilty. Critics who say this is done to "sell papers" are only half right. Certainly newspaper editors and TV news directors want a dramatic story that will sell tomorrow's product. But reporters are after something else. They want their story on the front page, or to lead the newscast. But whether for profit or for professional ego, controversy and fear get public attention, so editors and reporters play them up. And the public is left more afraid of some risks than the science suggests is justified. That fear can cause us to divert public resources from risks that pose a greater threat but that get less coverage. Mad cow disease offers a warning to America: We need more balanced journalistic coverage of this, and all risks, in the name of public health.