o r». . w: M.W‘ n.~._.o\ - 214 . . I ' 1 3 lilo! ll W L; ff“; University TH 69'9 .This is to certify that the thesis entitled A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL NEWS IN FOUR METROPOLITAN DAILIES presented by Diane Starr Petryk has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for M.A. degree in Journalism Major professor Date July 11, 1979 0-7639 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. MAGIC 2 I ”Jail 1999 ©Copyr1‘ght by DIANE STARR PETRYK 1979 A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL NEWS IN FOUR METROPOLITAN DAILIES By Diane Starr Petryk A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS School of Journalism 1979 ABSTRACT A CONTENT ANALYSIS OF MEDICAL NEWS IN FOUR METROPOLITAN DAILIES By Diane Starr Petryk The purpose of this study was to examine the content of nedical news in a sample of the largest circulation American metro- politan daily newspapers for l967-68, 1971-72, and l977-78. It was intended to check the validity of frequent criticisms made about medical news reporting. The criticism that medical news is presented as a series of dramatic breakthroughs exaggerating research results and advancements proved to be unfounded. Of 336 medical articles in the sample, only five described medical breakthroughs. Criticism that medical news is prepared by passive reporters unquestioningly accepting press releases and information handouts could not be dis- proved. Analysis of data indicated over 50 percent of medical news stories originated with little or mild reporter initiative. This is dedicated to my father, who loved science and truth, and my mother who worked with him to make my education possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation to Dr. George A. Hough 3rd for his encouragement and guidance in the research and writing of this thesis. Also special thanks to Dr. James Scotton for his instruction in research methods and Dr. Maurice R. Cullen Jr. for his advice and painstaking editing. For his counsel in the area of statistics and research design and computer programming, I am most grateful to Leonard J. Bianchi. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE III. THEORY AND METHOD . Theory and Hypotheses . Assumptions . . Methodology Procedures IV. RESULTS Frequencies Attention Scores V. DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Further Study APPENDICES . A. SAMPLE CODING SHEET B. DIRECTION TO PANEL OF JUDGES C. DESCRIPTION OF BREAKTHROUGH STORIES FOUND IN SAMPLE. BIBLIOGRAPHY iv Page Table wa 10. ll. 12. l3. T4. 15. 16. LIST OF TABLES Number of Articles by Newspaper Frequency Table of the Categori Frequency Table of the Origin 0 Frequency Table of the Year of Cross Tabulation of Newspapers Stories . . . . . Cross Tabulation of Origins of Cross Tabulation of Origins of Cross Tabulation of Categories Newspapers . . . . Cross Tabulation of Categories (numbers f0und) . . . . . Cross Tabulation of Categories (row percent) . . . . Cross Tabulation of Categories (total percent) . . . Cross Tabulation of Categories (column percent) Analysis of Variance of Attenti Origins . . . . . es of Stories f Stories the Stories . by Year of the Stories by Newspapers. Stories by Years of Stories by of Stories by Origins of Stories by Origins of Stories by Origins of Stories by Origins on Scores Between Differences Between Paired Groups of Origins Regarding Attention Scores Analysis of Variance of Attenti Categories . . . on Scores Between Differences Between Paired Categories Regarding Attention Scores Page 37 38 39 4l 42 43 44 46 48 49 50 52 54 55 56 57 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION No mariner ever entered upon a more uncharted sea than does the average human being born in the 20th Century. Our ancestors knew their way from birth to eternity. We are troubled about the day after tomorrow. --Nalter Lippmann In l960, the President's Science Advisory Committee laid a heavy burden on the country's mass communication system. It placed upon it the responsibility for adult education in science, which, it said, a democratic citizenry must understand for intelligent participation in national decision-making. "Such decisions are being made now," the Committee noted. "They cannot be postponed fbr 20 years while we are improving our present educational system. . . ."1 As l980 nears, an attempt can be made to assess the mass media's effectiveness in carrying out its assigned role of science educator to the public. Science writers and critics of science reporting insist that the press has failed in this function. They say it has failed in allowing crises related to energy, the 1John Troan, "Science Reporting--Today and Tomorrow," Science l31 (April 22, l960): ll93. 2 environment and bio-medical research catch us unprepared politically, legally and humanistically. Whether science writers could have prevented any of these crises is debatable, but there is no doubt that science writers fulfill a vital need. Evidence demonstrates that science and medical writing in newspapers serves a powerful alerting function, making it possible 2 Science for longer term "educational" processes to take hold. writing has been shown to have an impact on attitudes and behavior.3 Since the public gets a major portion of its science inform- 4 the science writer and science news ation from the print media, editor serve as powerful gatekeepers. How well they perform their duties determines to a significant extent the quantity and quality of science information transmitted to the public. In 1965, Turner Catledge, executive editor of the New York IiEEén stated that, while political and economic reporting will always be important, "today the major assignment above all others is science."5 2Earl Ubell, "Science in the Press: Newspapers vs. Magazines," Journalism Quarterly 40 (Summer 1963): 297. 3Charles F. Cannell and James C. MacDonald, "The Impact of Health News on Attitudes and Behavior," Journalism Quarterly 33 (Summer 1956): 315-323. 4Ube11, p. 294. 5Victor Cohn, "Are We Really Telling the People About Science?" Science 148 (May 7, 1965): 750. Other journalists have expressed the opinion that political and economic decision-making today is in itself primarily a response to the pressing and bewildering advances of science and technology and the social changes they work. If so, it is the science writers' job to put the knowledge of various scientific disciplines together plainly, coherently and effectively, so that the general public can understand what is happening in science and technology and respond to preserve our democratic ideals, our society, our families and our lives. This thesis is an effort to scrutinize a portion of the science news output of the American press, with particular attention to the reporting and writing practices for which it has been most criticized. These include exaggerated claims for discoveries, sensatjgflaljzjng, over-reliance on press releases and information handouts, superficialwcoverage and others. Although science news is the broad area of concern, this study is limited to medical news for a number of reasons. First, it has been said that 80 percent of the stories that make up what are called science stories are actually about medical matters.6 Medical news relates to all humans alike and is likely to have broader appeal and greater emotional impact than any other type of science news. 6William R. Oates, "Social and Ethical Content in Science Coverage by Newsmagazines," Journalism Quarter1y_50 (Winter l973): 681. The mass media view of science is predominantly one con- cerned with the ills and aches, the mending and fixings of man's sick body and mind, in the view of E. G. Sherburne Jr., director of Studies on the Public Understanding of Science for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He states: Medicine, I think, is popular for other reasons than the innate personal and human appeal. It is the practical science that has been with man the longest. The doctor, the practical artist of science, has lived among and been vitally associated with society for a longer period than any other of the practitioners or thinkers of science. Medicine is more completely incorporated into our thinking and general knowledge than any other kinds of scientific endeavor. And its pragmatic approach is easier to compre- hend. Further, the doctor, by virtue of his professional role, is communicator to the "common" man.7 The reader of a news story telling about a new cure or medical discovery is likely to ask his doctor about it, or at least he will remember it. The same reader might ignore or easily fbrget an .2 article on space exploration that has no obvious personal gffect on him. Finally, only medical articles were chosen for this study because they are more homogeneous, as a group, and therefore easier to define and select out. It is hoped that the findings of this study will help point out areas of genuine concern in science writing and alleviate criti- cism in areas where it has been unjustified, together a step toward improvement of science news for the benefit of all humankind. 7E. G. Sherburne Jr., "Science on Television: A Challenge to Creativity," Journalism Quarterly 40 (Summer 1963): 304. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Science news began to concern us greatly about the same time classroom science began to concern educators--with the advent of Sputnik in 1957. Two surveys conducted by the National Associa- tion of Science Writers showed that year that many newspaper readers desired more science news, particularly on medical subjects, and they were willing to give up some other kind of news to make room for it.8 For whatever reason, in the early 19605, publishers and editors began to give science news more space. At this time, according to Hillier Krieghbaum, author of Science and the Mass Mggia_and chairman of the New York University Department of Journalism, science news reporting was the most rapidly expanding segment in the communications field.9 Of course, with expansion came criticism. As the rate of medical discovery increased, so did efforts to inform the general public. Physicians were the first to complain about what they felt 8Hillier Krieghbaum, "Bouquets and Boobytraps for Science Writers," Nieman Reports 13 (April 1960): 25. 9Hillier Krieghbaum, "Reporting Science Information through the Mass Media," Journalism Quarterly 40 (Summer 1963): 292. was a tendency for reporters to rush into print with tales of medical "breakthroughs" before their legitimacy was confirmed. In an article in Medical Economics in 1959, the doctors' objections were made clear. Physicians are often faced with patients who bring in newspaper clippings and ask: "Why don't you try this on me?" They feel this reflects negatively on their knowledge and judgment.10 They resent the lay newspaper reporter trespassing in their specialized area. This resentment is particu- larly keen when one considers the historic natures of the two pro- fessions. Reporters need to get news fast and first. Doctors have a long tradition of cultivated reticence over jumping to conclusions. They may be reluctant to talk to the press about an idea or dis- covery unless it is confirmed beyond a doubt or they may fear peer criticism if they give interviews. Thus it is commonplace to find that doctors and reporters are often at odds with each other over what should be presented to the public as medical news. Reporters must encourage doctors and researchers to talk about their work, while at the same time guard against those who report their work over-enthusiastically. When this happens, doctors find more to criticize, generally under the heading of "raising false hopes."11 As Kreighbaum noted in 1960, doctors and scientists feel they regularly read of important new "cures" for one disease or 10Lois R. Chevalier, "Do Science Writers Raise False Hopes?" Medical Economics 36 (April 1959): 69. ll Ibid., p. 292. another which often only amounts to the fact that high powered press releases are handed out by well-intentioned public relations representatives. Scientists are not only human, he wrote, some of them are actually publicity seekers.12 Also in the early 19605, scientists, science writers and editors criticized the lack of space devoted to science news. So the science writer was in a double bind—-accused of rushing into print too soon while being encouraged all the while to demand more of a share of the news hole. Due to the space program, IflESI?§F-ifl_§CjPBQPMPPBKPB,909- iggfgggg§fiin-the amount of coverage it received could be measured. But these increases brought to light new problems. It was discovered, for instance, that instead of being a mediator between scientists and the public, "the mass media were introducing an apparently dissonant element." In a content analysis study of portrayals of mental illness by the mass media, conducted by the Mass Communications Research Center at the University of Wisconsin in 1963, the views of the public, the mental health experts and the mass media were compared. The experts and the public tended to agree in their conceptions of mental illness, whereas the mass media presented a different picture. The mass media featured the more bizzare, sordid and frivolous aspects of mental illness.13 12Krieghbaum, "Bouquets," p. 27. 13Percy H. Tannenbaum, "Communication of Science Informa- tion," Science 140 (May 10, 1963): 580. In the same year another research effort showed that newspaper editors applied different criteria for judging the news- worthiness of science news than did scientists, science writers and the lay audience. This study showed that editors evaluated science news stories primarily on the basis of color and excitement, while groups of scientists, science writers and science news readers, as well as non-readers of science news, all emphasized accuracy and significance.14 In the two studies mentioned it can be seen that the gate- keepers seemed to be unaware of the public's desires in the field of science news. Shortly after these studies were published, it was pointed out by science writers that requiring a news peg for every science story was in itselffdistortiggflngws,erscienceh According to Howard Simons, winner of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's top writing award in 1964, his success would not have been possible if his paper, the Washington Post, had insisted on 'today' leads of news pegs fbr every story.15 The problem with requiring news pegs, events of immediacy with which to relate the facts one wishes to present, is that often the practice results in presentation of a fictitious picture. 14Kenneth G. Johnson, "Dimensions of Judgment of Science News Stories, Journalism Quarterly 40 (Summer 1963): 315. 15Caryl Rivers, "Good Reporters Make Best Science Writers," Editor & Publisher (January 23, 1965): 17. As Simons stated: I must assume that a report at a scientific meeting is a product of years of work. To write a story saying that 'X' was discovered today is a fiction. The today lead is something most of us do because we are still trapped in traditional ideas of newspapering. At a scientific meet- ing there may be hundreds of papers delivered, all of them important. There is no reason why we shouldn't pick up one of those papers three weeks later and do a story about it. But the traditional light bulb flashes on in our minds and says it's old if it's not hung up like a coat on a news peg. The paper (the Washington Post) permits me to do the kinds of stories that excite me. If I want to do a story on the planet Jupiter I don't have to have a news peg to hang it on. It's my feeling that if we carry columns about chess and sports and comics strips, we ought to be able to write about science without a 'today' lead.16 At the same time attention was being focused on another form of distortion in science news reportingzzdue to.what.became known as the . libreelsthroygh rental .1 FY: " Kreighbaum reported at a conference of reporters, scientists and physicians in 1964 that he had asked 10 Nobel Laureates: "What do you consider the major defects in present—day reporting of scientific and medical news in the mass media?" Replies indicated that among the top concerns was the feeling that "everything is referred to as a breakthrough" or a "major advance" or the "key to life."17 (Scientists acknowledged that this could be the fault of the scientist as well as the journalist and that reporters should be skeptical of what a scientist or doctor says of his own work.) 15mm. 17Rick Friedman, "Doctors and Reporters Treat Problems of Science in News," Editor & Publisher (March 20, 1965): 9. 10 Pierre C. Fraley, a former Philadelphia Bulletin science writer, agreed with criticism of the word "breakthrough." Its use, he explained at the same conference, grew from a "striving on the part of the reporter for both the editor's and reader's attention" and hopes for page one play.18 "Nobody," Fraley said, "can tell you what a really major breakthrough is. 'Breakthrough' is a military analogy, but science is not good versus evil nor the enemy versus the allies. It's all of mankind getting an insight into the world around us."19 Later the same year, Victor Cohn, former science writer for the Minneapolis Tribune, wrote in Science: We over use a bagful of cliches like 'major break- through' and 'giant step forward.‘ I quote Turner Catledge . . . 'We have worn out our superlatives: we have spent our emotions; we have exhausted our imagina- tion in the search for the exciting.‘ . . . Science is not just a series of breakthroughs, but a long, hard, and, today, expensive search. We especially over-enthuse on medical "discoveries," Cohn wrote. Arthur J. Snider, former science writer for the Chicago Daily News, pointed out that he felt the record would show "90 percent" of the new drugs written about have gone down the drain as failures. Cohn wrote: I think we all know this. We know that false hopes fill doctors' offices with sufferers who must be dis- appointed. We must report the truly important, but 18113111.. pp. 9 and 46. 191bid., p. 46. 20Cohn, p. 751. 11 we need to show more discrimination and moderation and to include qualifications early in the story. We need to know more about interpreting and sometimes question- ing statistics.21 Eleven years later a "breakthrough mentality" on the part of reporters was still being criticized by scientists and science writers. And Daniel S. Greenberg, editor and publisher of Science and Government Report, added another complaint: that the science writer's attitude toward gathering science news is often one of passivity. "He's waiting for some medical institution to summon him to announce some breakthrough," Greenberg said. "The fact is, too often there hasn't been a breakthrough at all."22 Greenberg said the enterprise, initiative and skepticism typical of a good city hall reporter rarely can be found in reporters covering science. He said he doubted if editors would accept as much direct transmission of press releases from city hall reporters as they do breakthrough news announced by groups about to begin a fund drive to fight a disease.23 Newspapers write too much of their science news in a translator role. They report science as though it's episodic when science news is out there all the time ready to be ferreted out and written. Every now and then some- thing will surface. Psychic surgery fbr example or medical 2‘Ibid. 221. William Hill, "Reporters Urged to Stop Looking for Breakthroughs in Science," Editor & Publisher (March 27, 1976): 45. 23 Ibid. 12 experiments on prisoners or when is someone dead. News- lipilrlifi‘é'fteliei'SSLidhiXSetfie‘éi'§u§°3pt2i5§n§”ii§§?34 Greenberg, after checking back over newspaper-reported cancer cure breakthroughs over the past 20 years, and realizing they were not breakthroughs at all, urged newsmen to look back through their files to determine how many breakthroughs their newspapers had announced actually turned out to be genuine and significant. He called for as much attention to be given science as is given to the legislative process involving, say, an appropriations bill. He suggested that an uncooperative medical institution or hospital be given the same treatment as a non-cooperative city hall. His detailed account of how the press has been manipulated by misleading cancer statistics was published in 1975.25 As bleak as the situation looked to Greenberg in 1976, indications were that science writing had improved. Eight years after Sputnik, in 1969, Krieghbaum noted many editors said they felt there had been considerable improvement in science reporting and coverage since that milestone of technological achievement. Even discounting space flight stories, the "quality of science news 26 has surged upwards tremendously" one California editor wrote. Minor complaints fell into the realm of too much use of science 241nm. 25Daniel S. Greenberg, "A Critical Look at Cancer Coverage," Columbia Journalism Review (January/February 1975): 40-44. 26Hillier Krieghbaum, "At Sputnik Plus 8: More Science News," Editor & Publisher (October 30, 1965): 14. 13 terminology particular to specific fields without explanation of them, articles too long or not enough science news the average reader can use. One editor wrote: Space exploration accounts, Sealab, etc., are all very interesting as are detailed articles on laser development, heart-lung machines, and so forth. But there is very little directed at the readers' own activities in areas 27 where he has direct contact with scientific developments. Then in 1969, Joye Patterson, then assistant professor in the University of Missouri School of Journalism, reported in Journalism Quarterly results of a survey of newspaper editors. Seventy-seven percent of those surveyed could report they were giving at least twice as much space to science as in the previous decade. But Patterson and colleagues wanted to find out who, if anyone, was reading these science articles and what they most wanted to read about.28 Once again it was shown, as it was by Johnson and Tannenbaum, that editors were out of touch with the true wants of the public. One editor in the Patterson study, in selecting the material he thought his audience would want, rejected the material which was preferred by two-thirds of his participating subscribers. According to Patterson, this finding gave some support to Tannenbaum's findings which suggested that it was the editor in his role as gatekeeper who was out of touch and that the scientist, 27 28Joye Patterson, Laurel Booth, and Russell Smith, "Who reads About Science?" Journalism Quarterly 46 (Autumn 1969): 599 and 602. Ibid. 14 the science writer and the public tended to be more closely allied in their views. It also showed that the general public could take their science news straighter than some editors might suspect.29 At the same time, G. Ray Funkhouser was trying to find out why the public's awareness of current science was so "dismayingly low, to say nothing of knowledge or understanding."30 After a study, he stressed the necessity of using vocabulary specifically designed for the target audience. That is, translating scientific terms into simple vocabulary, short sentences, activity words, concrete words, everyday life parallels and examples.31 This advice, however, was challenged by other findings. Tannenbaum reported on a variety of studies in which specimens of science writing were examined for instances where a special scien- tific term had been "translated" into more conventional lay language. For example, "particle accelerator" translated into "atom smasher," "nucleus" into "heart of an atom" and so forth. The person who reads science news regularly found most of the original scientific terms at least as meaningful as the lay terms. Tannenbaum concluded that science writers, when simplifying science news, may be writing more for people who are not attending them than for their more 291pm. 306. Ray Funkhouser, "Levels of Science Writing in Public Information Sources," Journalism Quarterly 46 (Winter 1969): 721-26. 316. Ray Funkhouser and Nathan Maccoby, "Communicating Specialized Science Information to a Lay Audience," Journal of Communication 21 (March 1971): 69-70. 15 regular readers. Just as the sports section of the paper has its specialized terminology, Tannenbaum said he feels the science writer should be allowed to use scientific words without constant transla- tion or defining.32 Therefore, the question for editors is, should science writers work to cater to the individual who is not a reader to begin with, perhaps at the expense of alienating their more regular readers?33 While the needs of the average lay reader were being dis- cussed by communications researchers, University of North Carolina investigators were concerned about science professionals who read stories in the mass media. Their survey attempted to discover if medical stories in the mass media help keep doctors and medical researchers informed, as well as the general public. They attempted to find out if mass media alerted physicians to new developments in the vastly expanding field of medicine. They surveyed 229 members of the faculty of the University of Wisconsin Medical School. Sixty percent of the respondents answered that they sometimes gleaned information about research developments within their own specialties 34 from the mass media. 32Tannenbaum, p. 582. ”mm. 34Donald L. Shaw and Paul Van Nevel, "The Informative Value of Medical Science News," Journalism Quarterly 44 (Autumn 1967): 548. 16 The researchers surmised that doctors and medical researchers, pressed by the sheer number of scholarly journals they must read or skim, use science stories in the mass media as a kind of "index" to new developments. If this is so, they con- cluded, then "the medical science writer may be a more important 'gatekeeper' than he realizes."35 Unfortunately, the optimism expressed by this study was soon dimmed by the results of the research of Timothy O'Keefe, also of the University of North Carolina at the time. He found the usefulness to physicians of medical information gleaned from the mass media to be extremely limited. When asked how often they received information about new developments within their own specialty from the mass media, only 30 percent of the doctors said at least once a month. Reasons for this varied among those sur- veyed. Twenty percent of the respondents complained of the sensa- tional manner in which the stories were presented. Fourteen percent noted that the writers were simply ignorant of the subject matter and as a result failed to use critical judgment in writing their reports. Eleven percent cited incompleteness and superficiality of the reports as the main fault. Other reasons in order of frequency mentioned were: releases are premature and deal with unproven items; oversimplification; over-optimism on the part of the writer and 351m. 17 researcher; inaccuracy; exaggerated claims and lack of good follow-up.36 To illustrate the variety of feeling among doctors, O'Keefe quoted these remarks: _ A surgeon: "A doctor must keep up with the media because he must know what garbage the public is being fed." An internist: "(Medical news) tends too much toward the sensational aspect." A general practitioner: "I do not believe the average lay person should be too informed about experimental and unfounded facts and dread disease--he should have enough to seek help and no more." A pediatrician: "The education of the patient is as important or more important than the medicines prescribed. The participation of the 'pdpular' media in this education makes our work that much easier."37 The doctors pointed out that for the most part the media have been doing a poor job in keeping the public informed. Only 36 percent said they thought the public was reasonably well informed about current developments in their particular specialties; 54 per- cent said the public did not understand the developments very well and about 10 percent judged that the public knew almost nothing. O'Keefe concluded that from the doctors' comments it appears the 36M. Timothy 0' Keefe, "The Mass Media as Sources of Medi- cal Information for Doctors," Journalism Quarterly 47 (Spring 1970): 95- 96. 37Ibid., pp. 97, 97, 98. 18 amount of success of the mass media in relaying useful medical information to doctors, and the general public as well, is minimal. The top suggestion for improvement made by doctors would be for the media to do more than act as mere relayers of information. They suggested they should add perspective and evaluate many of the reports.38 In the wake of this heavy criticism, the general accuracy of science news came under scrutiny. A study of communication accuracy was conducted by Tichnor, et al., among 73 science news articles appearing in midwestern metropolitan daily newspapers in 1967 and early 1968. The articles were shown to survey respondents who were asked to read them and state what they said. Scientists quoted and reporters who wrote the articles were then interviewed. The proportion of audience statements generally accepted to the scientist quoted in the article was used as a measure of communica- tion accuracy. Results showed that communication accuracy was higher for articles assigned by editors than for articles originat- ing with public meetings, as hypothesized. However, reporters originating articles on their own initiative did not produce especially understandable articles.39 Articles originating from other written reports, such as press releases and journal articles, were also given above average on communication accuracy. The hypothesis that more personal 38Ibid., pp. 99-100. 391bid. 19 contact would lead to more communication accuracy was only partially supported. Among scientist variables examined, the strongest cor- relates of communication accuracy were administrative role perform- ance, perception of strict organizational policy for research reporting and perception of accuracy in newspaper reports.40 In 1970, James W. Tankard and Michael Ryan attempted to probe into scientists reactions to stories about their work. Using the technique of mail accuracy survey, developed by Charnley, clippings of science articles found in a random sample of newspapers were mailed to the sources of the articles with a four-page ques- tionnaire. The scientist-sources were asked to check which, if any, of 42 kinds of errors occurred in the stories quoting them, and indicate the number of times each error occurred. The researchers found the mean number of errors reported by the scientist-sources was 6.22 per story, while 8.8 percent of the 4] (Tankard and Ryan stories were reported to contain no errors. made no value judgment about this rate of errors.) In another part of the questionnaire, the "Yes" response indicating that the scientist thought there was a significant error in the lead was checked by 42 of the 193 respondents, or 21.8 per- cent. The scientists' descriptions of errors in the leads ranged from minor complaints about wording and emphasis to the pointing 4OIbid. 4AJames W. Tankard and Michael Ryan, "News Source Percep- tions of Accuracy of Science Coverage," Journalism Quarterly 51 (Summer 1974): 219 and 221. 20 out of serious inaccuracies. Examples of the latter were: "hypothesis to be tested . . . given as proven fact" in an article on heart valve transplants and an inappropriate use of the word "breakthrough" in describing research on the treatment of a disease.“ Types of errors that occurred in more than 30 percent of the sample were: Relevant information about study omitted (35.2 percent); Relevant information about results omitted (33.7 percent); Investi- gator misquoted (33.2 percent); Names of other investigatorsou Am.__v Ae.mv Am.m,v Ae._PV Ao.m_v mm o. op m op meeeeez 6Pe_eeeeem a on eeeeem AP.NV Ao.ev Ae.opv Ae.mv Ae.~v em m m e N _eee=eq Pee_eez ee e_eeeeeeem Am.mv Am.mv Am.PV on Am.ev F_ e P o e xoom to mcwnmmez .mmmea Lepzqom “P.5V Am.ev Ae.ev Ao.mpv Am.ev #N m m m m mmmmpmm mmmgn Am.mv A~.Fv Ao.mv Ae._v A~.mv m— N m p q :ummam Ae.mv AN.~_V Ao.mv AN.NV A~.mv mm ¢_ 0 m e 3ow>gmch Page» ewcwsexm Pecezoc mmmea weed umoa cmmwgo oomwuceem mmxzezpwz u_oeumo copmcezmez new .memaeamzmz An moweoum mo meemeeo to ee_eepzeee mmeeu--.e msmogucoo Ao.ev Am.v Am.mpv AN.NV AN.mV ON _ op m e momeu menu go mzcwca No.22v Ae.mv AN.ev AN.PNV AN.NV meeaeeeeee Nm P. m m. e .meeee eeeeeee< e6 eoeeeea_exu Ao.ev Ap.ev AN.ev Am.ev Am.ev 0N N m m m mem_eo eeeeeau A_.mv Ap.ev Ao.ev AN.NV fie.Nv up n m m N meowummpumm>cH mcwomco Ne.omv AN.NNV Ao.emv Ao.mNV Ne.NNV No— mm NN ON NN mupammm cuemmmmm Am.mv AN.m.v AN.ev AN.NV Am.ev om m_ m N m cowpm>occH Am._v Am.v AN.PV AN.NV Am._v m _ P N _ emeeeeexeeem Pepe» Loew5mxm Fecesoq mmmea page “mom zgommumu oomwocmeu mmxamzpwz uwoepmo copmcwzmez :mm .memaeamzmz an mmweopm mo mm_eommpmo yo cowpepaneh mmoeu--.m m4meeNeou ON e N o c o o o N o e memeu meme .eaeNea mmeavmooem .muoem NN e 4N o N e m N N N m eeeeeee< Ne eeNNeeeNexN ON N N N N o o o N o N memNeo Neeeeau NN e e m N o o o N N o meeNNemNNme>eN aeNemeo NoN NN N m mN eN eN m oN N N mNNameN eeeeemem om 4N N o N N o N N o m eeNNe>eeeN m N o o o N o N N o o emaeeeexeeem I. n w Gal. 9 Sud NS ”.0 d S .l. 0 U n 003 O 33 33 90 J .0 U I. D. IL WUS A Ird 0...... 5d 3 3 1. UV 3 1. 51. 3 30 [.3 PM 5 3 3 .1. 1. l. 1:41.. J UJ DU 21. S D J 3 .m. lfiw U MHZ. “ELM” murfl U U. M. W 3 “WSW W JD. I... 3 3 3 w 6%4 w N1 wu 6“ Nu M 0.. CU. D. n J3 3 0. JP U W JO 5 5 IL .I. 3 3 UJ 85 3 3 3 d 3 D. 0.. o O 1... .IL 0 n J l. on. J 1.. U 1.. 5 .Aucaoe memesscv mcwmweo an mmNNoum we mmNNommNmu No coNNmNznep mmoeunu.m mNmogpcou o.om o.me o o o o o o.m o o.om mmmwo mgmm .mscw:= . . . . . . . . . magnumuoee .muuem o.m~ o.mm o.m o.mm o o o o.m o o.m momwgu pcmggzo m.mm m.mm o.mp m.—p o o o m.m m.m o mcowummwumm>cH mcwomco n.op m.m m.N o.w~ m.mm “.mp m.m m.m o.F o.N mupzmmm sugmmmmm m.m¢ m.m o m.m m.o o m.m m.m o o.om cowum>o::H o.o~ o o o o.o~ o o.o~ o.o¢ o o cmzogcuxmmgm n N 331.. 9 SH ms ”:0 d s I U n 003 0 33 3 90 J .0 U 6. 1. meme. N Na mm. NM N N m. w ML... I...Jl. J UJ 3U 21. S 3 .J a m. 4.66 u H1 mm. .3. u. m. w a flaw w 1.2 J .uea w. a I? 9|..nA u [:11 Pl. 10 II. M U 0. 1.. 3 O3 OJ 3 D. DU. 0.. n Ina D» 0. JD. U w JO 5 S a 6.. N... N N... NJ. 6 m 0 1. I. O 1 u. m. 1 1. 5 .Aucmoema zoev mcwmwgo Nd mmNNopm mo mmwcommueu No eeNNeNaeeN mmOLU--.ON NNmogucou o.e N.N N.N o o o o o m. o N.N memeu meme .eaeNea . . . . . . . . . . mmczumoogm .muomu 0.0 m. P.N m. F.~ o o o m. o m. mmmwgu ucmggzu N.N N.N N.N m. e. o o o m. m. o meeNNemNNme>eN me.emeo ¢.om P.m P.N m. m.m N.N N.v m. o.m m. m. mppzmmm zugmmmmm m.m N.¢ m. o m. m. o m. o. o N.N cowum>occm m.N m. o o o m. o m. e. o o emzeeeexeeem 1.. n N 33'- 9 S U ”S w d d S I 0 U n 0 0 3 O 3 3 3 3 p. 0 J d U «4. p .1. m U S A l..d p .L. 5 d 3 3 1.. D. 3 1+ 6 1.. 3 3 O l. 3 D. n S 3 3 I. «I? l. L. J I: J U J 3 U 2 II. S 3 J a m. .. a m u ...... 1 mm... m. m a u. M W 3 “IO? “U w w I: D. I: 3 3 3 I... a L.‘ U I... 1... P .L. d 1.. M U 0 . an? 3 0 3 O J 3 D. 0 U _ p. n J 3 D. O. J B N. w" J 0 S S I.- II. a a U J as a 3 3 d 3 D. 0 c 0 0 a... 1.. 0 m u. m. x. 1 5 .Apcmogma Nepopv mcmeNo An mmNNon No mmNNommNeu mo :oNNNNzaeh mmoeu--.NN m4m

oeu=ou N.op ~.__ o o o o o N.e o m.m_ momma meme .m=c_== mwc: woo; .m on m.o ~.m_ o e.~ m.o_ mJN_ N.m_ m.m ¢.m, N.NF umpemuu=H m=_om=o m.m~ _.m m.m_ ~.m¢ «.mc m.mm m.NN ~.Fe N.N m.o mpFammm zucmmmwm N.m~ m._ o ¢.~ m.m o _.m m.m o o._m cowom>o==H 5., o o o o.~ o F.m m.m o o gmzoegpxomgm n N 331. DJ Sud NS ”.0 d S I U n 003 0 33 33 90 J .0 U w u mmn m flm mu wm w a a 1. l. l..Jl.. J UJ 3U 2|... 5 3 J 8 .m. 1.3m U Hui. m...” [.9 U. M w a ”WSW w inn. 1.“ WJ mm. a. I: alroA U [.17 All. .0 II. M U 0. 1. 3 03 OJ 3 D. 0U. D. n J3 D. 0. JD... no N JO 5 S I. IL 3 a UJ 85 a a 3 d 3 P. 0.. o 0 1? II. o n J L. V... J 1.. U 1. 5 .Aucmogma cs:_ouv mcwmwco An mmwconm mo mmwgommuwo we co_po_:amp mmogu--.mp m4m<~ 53 Attention Scores An attention score from 0 to 5 was given each artic1e by a method discussed in Chapter III. An ana1ysis of variance showed that attention scores by year of the stories, by newspaper, by newspaper and year and by category of story and year were not significant. Ana1ysis of variance of attention scores between origins was significant (Tab1e 13). A post hoc statistica1 test, the Lease Significant Differ- 68 was used to make pairwise comparisons among means. ence Test This test found significant attention score differences between the mu1tip1e group and a11 other origins except interview and speech (Tab1e 14). Significant differences were found between the interview group and those of press re1eases, government reports, undeterminab1e and scientific or medica1 journa1s. Ana1ysis of variance of attention scores between categories of stories was significant (Tab1e 15). The post hoc statistica1 test found significant differences in attention scores between Category 6, exp1anation of accepted facts and procedures, and a11 the other categories except Category 7, unique/rare cases, and Category 1, breakthroughs (Tab1e 16). Significant differences were a1so found between Category 7 and a11 the other categories except for Category 1 and Category 6. 68Roger E. Kirk, Experimenta1 Design: Procedures for the Behaviora1 Sciences (Be1mont, Ca1ifornia: Brooks/Co1e Pub1ishing Company, 1968), p. 87. 54 mm.m . mpnm:PEmemu:: .o_ o¢.m - mpawp_=z .G mm.~ . xcoewpmmh .m N¢.N . pgoamm pcmEch>ow .n m:_ummz m~.N - u...»=m_um pm became .o om.m . chgzoa owm_ucmwum .m em.~ . mmmga emngom .v m¢.~ . meowpmpom mmmcm .m ou.~ . :uwmqm .N . mp.m . zmw>gmpcm ._ "cwmwgo ma mmcoum co_pcmpu< yo mcmwz $0 pmwg mo. v 9.. om.m~¢ mmm 4 yo mwmx_m=<--.mp u¢mow m~.o m_.o mo.o .. mmmmpmm mmmga . . . . .. xoom Lo mc_~mmmz em o Fm o N_ o mo 0 .mmmgm .mpzaoa mm.o o¢.o Fm.o w~.o mp.o -- acoewummh . . . . . . -- m:_ummz pmu_umz .0 mm o ow o Fm o mm o m. o oo o mucmwum um ugoawm cm.o m¢.o em.o Pm.o -.o mo.o mo.o .. gummam «mm.o «om.o ._~.o «mm.o mm.o o¢.o o¢.o um. .. 2mw>gmpcm ¥m~.~ «mo._ *Nm.o x¢m.o xmm.o km©.o kmo.o mm. mm. In mpawupzz ”S n 9 d ”.0 I. 0nd S .l. w 33 U 0 J 9.0 3 JG .0 U n pl. p A 3 5d 5 d 3 1. I. Ira 3 a S D.” 1. N0 3 3 1. au 1... J S 2'. I.. and 3 J I? v.1. a U [.9 w 0.1. U. A .0 ll... J m “a UJ 0 I... L. IL I: w a 3 3 U 30. a 3 Pl. l. U I. .d nA 91.. M 03 U 1. 3 OJ I. n D. D. J3 S JO 0. H. S 5 N3 UJ I. 3 a 85 Bl. D. a d 0.. 33 IL 0 0 1U J x [.3 1.. U3 RU .mmgoum cowucmpu< mcwuemmmm mc_m..o .o quogu um._mm :mmzpmm mmucmgm..wonu.¢F u4mogu:ou .m o¢.m . mmmmu mgmm\m=cwc= .N muumu umpawuu< o..m - .o co...cm_qu .. om.~ . mmmwgo pcmggzu .m Nm.~ . meowummwumm>=H mcwomco .e mm.m . mqummm cogmmmmm .m o~.~ . c0.»m>oc=. .N oo.m . smaoggpxmmem .P "agommumu an mmgoum cowpcmup< .o meow: mo paw. mo. v a... me.mke mmm 4 .o mwmxpmc<-n.mp m4mcH m=_omco mo.o mo.o .. mapsam.o\amem>ocucou mo.o no.o Fo.o .. memuumz mem4\mpmou mc.o mo.o Fo.o oo.o .. mmmwgu pcmggzu ¢_.o m—.o oo.o no.0 mo.o -- mupammm sugmmmmm m_.o m_.o P_.o o_.o op.o eo.o -- meowpm>o=cH me.o N¢.o F¢.o o¢.o oe.o em.o om.o .. msmzogsuxmmcm ./ «mm.o «mm.o «om.o .om.o «ow.o «cm.o *om.o oe.o .. momma mgmm\m=c.:: Fa «mm.o «mm.o .Fw.o «Pm.o .Fm.o kmn.o .Pm.o P¢.o mo.o .. mmgaumuoca .maumu umpamuu< mo =o_pmcmpgxm D.” 0 3 3 3 ud .l. 8 n .dva U3 U 0 0 n 3 U J U JDX pp 5 U S J S U 3 1.. 03.0 L. O 1. 1. J a O n. b Dal 13 I.. J S a D. A x n adD. U.D. U 0 / U J D. 1. 3 p1.U 3|. 5 A _.| 1. 3 1. U. / “39 L. a a u. L. J u... JP1. Jd I J 5 3 0 O D. 3 I. a U S n. J “0 U n J 54.0 OJ A nA IL I.. 3 5 3 EU .05 a / S S U: 3 [.0 S U N 3 n S 3 1.0 UU 1. l. D. 5 IL D. SI: [.9 l. S 1. 1. S c CI. 6 d 1. S 3 Ul. D. n 3 S 51. 1. 1. J m. m. m s s w .mmgoum copucmup< mcwugmmmm mm..ommumu umgwmm cmmzpmm mmucmemm..ou-.oF m4m