Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Dec 15;11(12):e0168217.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0168217. eCollection 2016.

Exaggerations and Caveats in Press Releases and Health-Related Science News

Petroc Sumner  1   2 , Solveiga Vivian-Griffiths  1   2 , Jacky Boivin  2 , Andrew Williams  3 , Lewis Bott  2 , Rachel Adams  2 , Christos A Venetis  4   5 , Leanne Whelan  2 , Bethan Hughes  2 , Christopher D Chambers  1   2
Affiliations

Exaggerations and Caveats in Press Releases and Health-Related Science News

Petroc Sumner et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Background: Exaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored.

Methods and findings: Using quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature.

Conclusions: For health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Association between press release and news exaggeration.
The proportions of news with exaggerated advice (A), or causal statements from correlational research (B) were higher when the associated press releases (PR) contained such exaggeration (N for Advice, PR = 247, news = 411; causal claims, PR = 164, news = 237). Error bars are 95% confidence intervals. See Table 1 for odds ratios. Partial results for non-human studies are in supporting information because low N meant this analysis could not be performed.
Fig 2
Fig 2. No Effect of press release exaggeration on news uptake.
The proportion of press releases (PRs) that have resulting news articles when the press releases do not contain exaggerations (left bars) compared to when they do (right bars) for analyses of advice (A) and causal claims from correlation (B). Error bars are bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals. See Table 1 for odds ratios. Note that full analysis for non-human studies could not be performed because only one exaggerated press release had associated news.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Press release caveats, news uptake and caveats in news.
(A) News uptake for press releases (PRs) with and without caveats for explicit advice. (B) News uptake for PRs with and without caveats for causal claims. (C) Association between caveats for explicit advice in the PR and caveats for explicit advice in resulting news articles. (D) Association between caveats for causal claims in the PR and caveats for causal claims in resulting news articles. All error bars are bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Press release justifications, news uptake and justifications in news.
(A) News uptake for press releases (PRs) with and without justifications for explicit advice. (B) News uptake for PRs with and without justifications for statements of relationship. (C) Association between justifications for explicit advice in the PR and justifications for explicit advice in resulting news articles. (D) Association between justifications for statements of relationship in the PR and justifications for statements of relationship in resulting news articles. All error bars are bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Gandy OH. Beyond agenda setting Ablex Publishing Corporation; 1982.
    1. Nelkin D. Selling Science. W H Freeman & Company; 1995.
    1. Williams A. Environmental news journalism, public relations, and news sources. hansen A, Cox R, editors. 2015. pp. 197–206.
    1. Lewis J, Williams A, Franklin B. A compromised fourth estate? Journalism Studies. 2008;9: 1–20.
    1. Bauer MW, Bucchi M. Journalism, Science and Society. Routledge; 2008.

LinkOut - more resources