Reporting pill panic. A comparative analysis of media coverage of health scares about oral contraceptives

Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 62-66

  Hammond, Philip B ^a  

^a Buckinghamshire College   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ORAL CONTRACEPTIVE AGENT;

ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BREAST CANCER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE ASSOCIATION; FAMILY PLANNING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MASS MEDIUM; PANIC; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; THROMBOEMBOLISM; UNITED KINGDOM; VEIN THROMBOSIS;

EID: 0030794135     PISSN: 14711893     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Spitzer WO, Lewis MA, Heinemann LAJ et al Br Med J 1996; 312: 83-88.
2. Figures from the Prescription Pricing Authority, reported in Pulse, June 8, 1996.
3. See 'Abortions expected to soar after the Pill scare', Pulse, January 6, 1996; 'Summer baby boom predicted after Pill scare' Daily Telegraph, 2 March 1996; and the letter from Dr Sally Hope (Hope S. Br Med J 1996; 312. Confirmation of the rise in abortions came from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in April 1996, and from the Office of National Statistics in November 1996.
4. See 'Abortions expected to soar after the Pill scare', Pulse, January 6, 1996; 'Summer baby boom predicted after Pill scare' Daily Telegraph, 2 March 1996; and the letter from Dr Sally Hope (Hope S. Br Med J 1996; 312. Confirmation of the rise in abortions came from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in April 1996, and from the Office of National Statistics in November 1996.
5. See 'Abortions expected to soar after the Pill scare', Pulse, January 6, 1996; 'Summer baby boom predicted after Pill scare' Daily Telegraph, 2 March 1996; and the letter from Dr Sally Hope (Hope S. Br Med J 1996; 312. Confirmation of the rise in abortions came from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service in April 1996, and from the Office of National Statistics in November 1996.
6. Institute of Population Studies: Survey of Users of Combined Oral Contraceptives, University of Exeter, December 1995, 2. The survey also found some age differentiation, with the under 20s preferring television, and the over 30s preferring the national press as the most helpful information source.
7. We did not examine ITV news bulletins because they did not cover the June story about the Pill and breast cancer. This, in itself, of course, is indicative of the lesser priority given to the later story, as compared with October's scare.
8. The tables here show figures for all television news bulletins on the channels indicated, rather than only those four selected for more detailed content analysis.
9. We widened the categorisation of 'benefits' to include any references to the positive aspects of the Pill. In the coverage of both October 1995 and June 1996 there were a significant number of phrases indicating positive aspects, but which did not include any key words equivalent to 'benefits'. In the press coverage: on June 18, 1996, 7 out of 15 phrases categorised under benefits lacked a key word; the total for October 20, 1995 was 12 out of 22 phrases. Examples included phrases such as: 'one of the greatest boons of the 20th century', or 'the chance of pregnancy is practically nil', In order to make our comparison of risks and benefits as unambiguous as possible, we felt it was important to broaden the latter category.
10. For example, the sentence 'For the women not taking the Pill the risk of thrombosis is five in 100000, for those taking brands other than the seven named by the Department the risk rises to 14 in 100000, and users of the seven named brands face a risk twice that' (BBCI 6pm News, 20 October 1995), would give three risk phrases: 'the risk of thrombosis', 'the risk rises', and 'a risk twice that'.
11. For example:' ...the benefits of taking the Pill outweigh the risks...' (Daily Mirror, June 18, 1996, emphasis in original.
12. This was because we worked from transcripts of items in television news programmes, rather than video tapes.
13. Examples included phrases such as: 'small increased risk', 'the diminishing risk disappears after 10 years', and 'the risks are so slight'.
14. In the press coverage on October 20, 1995, for example, out of 96 mentions of risk, only four mentioned fatality.
15. This point was made by the Guardian's Chris Mihill, who described how, after the Lancet/ICRF press conference in June 1996: 'We came away saying "this isn't much of a scare, and if anything it's almost a good news story."'
16. A related argument is that other news priorities at the time affected the profile of each story. It was suggested to us that whilst October 1995 may have been relatively quiet in news terms, the June 1996 story was overshadowed by other news events, such as the Manchester bomb or the World Cup. However, both stories were covered by specialist medical correspondents, for whom there was no other big story in June 1996. Furthermore, whilst this factor may have had some influence on the prominence given to each story by editors, it does not explain the differential treatment of the two stories by medical journalists.
17. The importance of this factor is also confirmed if one compares the coverage of the October 1995 CSM announcement in the British press with the reaction in other countries. See: Füredi, F, Füredi, A. The International Impact of a Pill Panic in the UK, London, Birth Control Trust, 1996.