Cancer and the Media
A 52-year-old woman wakes up one morning and feels a lump. Days go by and her anxiety rises so she schedules an appointment with her doctor, who, in turn, orders a biopsy. The doctor tries to assure her that it’s probably nothing but it’s necessary to check. Check for what? Malignancy? Life Expectancy? Surgical Options? Chemotherapy? The search begins: the internet, television, radio, newspapers, blogs, governments, pharmaceuticals conglomerates, libraries and oncologists – all of whom have answers. Within ten minutes the internet alone can yield five medical journals, three cancer self help sites and seven New York Times articles on cancer.
In 2008, 7.9% of the population in the United States was diagnosed with cancer with approximatley1500 deaths per day (Cancer.about). It is the second principal cause of death in this country. (CDC). So it is not surprising that thousands of bits and pieces of cancer metadata are distributed each day by the media. A simple internet search of “cancer” will reveal 42 million internet findings in .27 seconds.
Some of the information is relevant to cancer patients, but there is contradictory or supplementary information that may be confusing and even, at times, harmful. Does the media facilitate or damage cancer research and patient treatments? How does an individual distinguish reality and illusion through the tsunami of information from the media? Does media coverage of cancer pay too little on prevention or down play cancer treatments and does it paint an overly optimistic picture of recovery from cancer?
The Cure for Cancer: Can the Media Report the Hope Without the Hype?
Christopher K. Daugherty from the University of Chicago writes a zealous and appealing editorial on media hype and its effects on cancer research and funding. Daugherty’s voice is sympathetic and thoughtful. His historical references to secret cancer clinical trials in the 1940s are direct and educational. As an oncologist, Daugherty has written numerous works on ethical issues concerning informed consent and how physicians discuss prognosis with terminally ill cancer patients.
As a writer and representative of the American Medical Association, Daugherty has a complicated obligation representing himself as a journalist. He does not mince words pertaining to the media and takes aim at Gina Kolata of the New York Times for her article on May 3, 1998 which claimed “within a year, if all goes well, the first cancer patient will be injected with two new drugs that can eradicate any type of cancer”. Obviously, this wildly optimistic quote was to excite the public about cancer treatments and well as sell newspapers for the New York Times. Also, when Daugherty attacks the tell-all television talk shows and celebrity cancer patient’s narratives he exposes an unwillingness to bend his Hippocratic Oath (Daugherty). His medical journal narrative is well written and informative as is his contribution in exposing media propaganda concerning cancer treatment, research and funding.
A Cancer Patient's Social-Media Crusade
Allison Fine and her podcasts with The Chronicle of Philanthropy magnify the need for an authentic social conscious. As a concerned social media tactician, Fine interviews Drew Olanoff, of the Blame Drew’s Cancer campaign. Olanoff has cancer and is encouraging people to use Twitter to blame his cancer for their troubled lives (Fine). Fine is an advocate for this kind of communal media technology, subsequently Olanoff’s personal journey fits well into her social media construct.
It’s problematic that Fine can have a balanced view of her social change podcasts. Like other cancer survivors and cancer advocates, she has an agenda to communicate her social ideals and principles.
Through Olanoff’s voice, one can hear the angst of his cancer battle. It’s a crusade for fighting cancer with one tweet at a time. Fine assists in the battle with her intuitive questioning and concerns in the podcast narrative. As an interviewer and commentator Fine enables Olanoff to tell his story without the usual talk show banter and commercial interruptions.
Fine makes a convincing case with Olanoff’s Blame Drew’s Cancer campaign and through this she spreads her idealism, blind faith and social conscious. These social networks are bringing people together and also are a significant factor in raising money for philanthropy and other social causes.
Breast Cancer Sells
October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Lucinda Marshall is a feminist author who delivers passionate pink punches at Madison Avenue in the October issue of AltNet. Marshall unleashes a torrent of facts deriding women’s magazines for their misleading information concerning this disease. In some ways, her voice is unsophisticated and unsympathetic, but Marshall is unrelenting in her tirade at Good Housekeeping and Woman’s Day for erroneous information concerning mammogram screening and offering overly simplistic information about breast cancer risk factors and tips for preventing it in the United States is distressing (Marshall). The attack on Vogue and Ralph Lauren’s T shirts with bull’s eyes above the breasts as sponsors of Cancer Awareness Month demonstrates Marshall’s irritation at vapid symbols and lack of medical substance.
Marshall’s work on breast cancer awareness voices alarm for women magazines, their publishers and commercial sponsors for irresponsible information regarding breast cancer and treatment.
Media Feeds Frenzy Over Shark Cartilage As Cancer Treatment
A group of scientists in Cuba have studied the effects of shark bone as a cancer treatment. James Mathew’s article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute identified several prominent reports by 60 Minutes and Bill Moyers television series that publicize the use of shark cartilage as a promising cancer treatment. This is not the first time 60 Minutes has been involved in controversial cancer reporting. In 1994, the late Ed Bradley produced a segment about damizozide which was a suspected cancer causing agent sprayed on apples. The 60 Minutes report was challenged in court by apple growers in Washington State. The case was dismissed in the Ninth Circuit court in 1995 (scholar). It may be argued that both of these media titans, 60 Minutes and Bill Moyers should have been more responsible in their reporting. This kind of sensational cancer journalism has become common in today’s media. Mathew’s article is balanced as he presents pros and cons of this issue. This article is funded by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Save the Boobs
Aliya Jasmine Sovani, a VJ for MTV Canada produced, directed and starred in this public service announcement during breast cancer awareness month. Aliya bounces across the screen, watched predominately by a male audience, in a white bikini, with close ups of her breasts bouncing in slow motion, inner cut with the words, “You Know, You Like Them, Now It’s Time, To Save The Boobs”. Granted this video was watched over 150,000 times on YouTube and viewed 420,000 times on break.com (tvzone). The question is who is watching? I suspect it wasn’t females over 50 who would be most likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer. If the PSA was useful, doctors and clinics would have seen an increase of mammograms tests in Canada. Sovani’s PSA was convincing only in that as it pertains to her sexuality and future diva status at MTV, but the way it was produced, it did little to increase breast cancer awareness.
Media Downplay Failings of Cancer Treatments
The underreported bad news about cancer is John Gever’s focus in this MedPageToday article. In analyzing more than 400 articles about cancer, investigators found that palliative care was never the main focus (Gever). In another startling research project Gever discovered the studious New York Times distorted the risks and benefits of cancer treatment, along with Newsweek, People and Time magazines. Patients need to be informed about the trade-offs amid cures and end of life decisions brought about by cancer. This distorted view of cancer is brought to life in his article. Media reporting relating to cancer should show a balanced outlook reporting the bad news and as well as the good news as Gever’s has pointed out.
Whale boosts paddleboarder's charity ride
Lee Cowan, NBC’s roving human interest reporter, sets his gaze on Jodie Nelson who is a professional surfer from California. Cowan on a Southern California beach, begins his “standup” describing Nelson’s journey from the California Coast to Catalina Island as “inspirational” and “magical”. The 40-mile sea journey is to raise money for Keep a Breast Foundation, a non- profit foundation whose mission is to help eradicate breast cancer by exposing young people to methods of prevention, early detection and support (Keep-a-Breast).
During the nine-hour sea journey Nelson is visited by a Minke whale she nicknames “Larry”. Larry is “magical”. Apparently, he is also a cash cow. The viral social breast cancer networks find out about Larry following Nelson and a tidal wave of donations roll in, $122,500 as of April 5, 2010. The message is that the whale, the 30-foot leviathan answered the prayers of Keep a Breast Foundation and attracted NBC News, Grind TV and the Huffington Post. Without the whale, the foundation was expecting to raise $6,000. Money was raised, but the spotlight was on Larry. I believe we might remember the whale, but not the original message. But at least Nelson was able to help her cause through this significant fund-raising event.
Effects of News Events on Response to a Breast Cancer Screening Program
It seems like ancient history now, but it’s important to remember that both wives of President Ford and Vice-President Rockefeller had breast cancer. In this Public Health Report of 1978, the breast cancer surgery of Mrs. Ford and Mrs. Rockefeller removed some of the obstacles to open the discussion of breast cancer and the value of mammograms. This well disciplined study thoroughly analyzes the media effect of cancer news and the increase of mammogram screening and examinations during Ford’s presidential term. There was an overall increase of cancer awareness that cut across all aspects of the female population in this study. Remarkably the nine percent spike in mammogram examinations was due to reality journalism of two high profile political personalities. Similarly, in 1989 when Nancy Reagan suffered from breast cancer, there was a six to eight percent increase of mammogram examinations (Lane). Interesting enough the rise of breast examinations and awareness was not due to social networks, advertising or brilliant marketing campaigns of Tommy Hilfiger, Birkenstock or Susan G. Koemen, but was spread through the “Neanderthal” news media outlets of the 1970’s.
Media Coverage of Breast Cancer Focuses Too Little On Prevention, Study Suggests
In 2008, media coverage of breast cancer prevention was a missing factor in major media outlets including the Los Angeles Times, NBC Nightly News and U.S. News and World Report, according to Science Daily .The report based on the research paper “A Comprehensive Analysis of Breast Cancer News Coverage in Leading Media Outlets Focusing on Environmental Risks and Prevention” by the National Cancer Institute. Over a two year period only 18 percent of media reporting focused on prevention rather than treatment. Lacking were stories on prevention, such as eating right, diet, exercising and avoiding substances that are known to contribute to breast cancer. Cancer narratives reported in the media mostly focused on personal stories and treatment rather than on prevention. While heredity can lead to breast cancer there are never the less steps to reduce one risk to reduce the metastasizing spread. In the battle against breast cancer the voices on prevention need to be heard especially because some studies suggest that the media, along with friends and family members, are more influential than physicians.
Living Can Be Hazardous to your Health: How the News Media Cover Cancer Risks
Cristine Russell writes an irrefutable review that summarizes three decades of media missed coverage of the health risks of cancer. The 30-year war on cancer has created confusion and anxiety among the consumers of print, electronic and web media. This onslaught of cancer good- news / bad- news has desensitized the media consuming public. They are bewildered, not knowing whom to trust or whom to believe. The media consumers are not the only victims; researchers, scientists and politicians have also fallen prey to the misinformation. This uncertainty might be called the National Academy of Science syndrome because so many reports end with a caveat that more research is needed (Russell).
On another striking issue is that once we declare war and this goes for cancer, drugs, poverty or terrorism, it becomes unwinnable in the public eye.
Russell also created guide lines that reporters should keep in mind to improve the coverage of cancer reporting. It’s a level headed approach to a complicated narrative with contextual principles.
Media raise cancer fears
In this BBC health article, the media is lambasted for its misleading reports on cancer. Celebrity cancer in the U.K. amounted to 200 articles a week, suggesting cancer can be glamorous. The paparazzi reporting also included thirty-seven cancer preventive poultices including chocolate, arsenic and mud (BBC). The media was also blamed for its use of the word “cancer” when it described Bill Clinton, Saddam Hussein and Serbs as cancers. This kind of rhetoric only serves to confuse patients. The BBC points out the war imagery of cancer, battle, fight and victim intones a negative connotation. Nicholas Young the chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Relief suggests the language of cancer is inaccurate, confusing and frightening.
Aspirin and Breast Cancer: The Media Does It Again!
Aspirin and Breast Cancer: The Media Does It Again, summarizes the paradoxical circumstances medical journalists find themselves in. Michelle D. Holmes, M.D., Assistant Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School, released vital information in the Journal of Clinical Oncology concerning an observational study of aspirins effect on breast cancer. The finding suggested taking aspirin might prevent further recurrences of breast cancer. Bonnie Reichman M.D., a Clinical Associate Professor at Cornell University, who wrote this article, finds these results, alarming and startling. In Reichman’s conservative view, chemotherapy and anti-estrogens have decreased the mortality rate of breast cancer. We also know that lifestyle changes including a low fat diet, exercise and maintaining a healthy weight my decrease breast cancer occurrence. As a neophyte in medical idioms I have become a statistic in this health cat fight. Whom do I believe? Cornell or Harvard? Whom do I trust? The Journal of Clinical Oncology or Women’s Voice for Change?
Conclusion
It’s a decision many will have to face. How to treat cancer? Your doctor and oncologist are trained to treat this disease. The media is also filled with helpful but sometimes contradictory information, sometimes overly optimistic other times dramatically pessimistic.
For one’s own well being it is vital to be informed and knowledgeable of cancer treatments. Before the internet and accessible medical journals, most were in the dark and depended largely on the word of experts. As the research suggests, the media coverage of cancer is complex and confusing. Noteworthy though, the media have recognized their own information as problematic and divided. As noted, palliative care in scarcely mentioned and preventative care is also lacking in cancer journalism. Bizarre treatments for cancer are represented as factual and social networks and some sponsors are more concerned with their image rather than increasing mammogram awareness. As Cristine Russell points out reporters should adhere to guidelines to improve the coverage of cancer, so that it is balanced and represents the whole spectrum of cancer treatments available at this time.
Works Cited
"Auvil v. CBS 60 Mintues, 67 F. 3d 816-Court". Court of Appeals, 9th Circut Court. 04/01/2101
Cowan, Lee. "Whale boosts paddleboarder’s charity ride ". NBC News. 04/06/2010
Daugherty, Christopher K.. "The "Cure" for Cancer: Can the Media Report the Hope Without the Hype? ". Journal of Clinical Oncology,. 3/26/2010
Fine, Allison. "A Cancer Patient's Social-Media Crusade". The Chronicle of Philanthropy. 3/25/10
Fink, R. Roeser, R. Vene, W. Strax, P. Venet. L. and Lacher, M. "Effects of news events on response to a breast cancer screening program.". Public Health Reports . 4/02/2010
Gever, John. "Media Downplay Failing of Cancer Treatments". medpagetoday. 4/1/10
"How Many People Die of Cancer Each Day?". About.com:Cancer. 4/03/2010
Lane, D S. "The impact of media coverage of Nancy Reagan's experience on breast cancer screening". American Public Health Association. 4/4/2010
"Leading Causes of Death". National Center for Health Statistics. 4/04/2010
Marshall, Lucinda. “Breast Cancer Sells". Alter Net. 3/29/2010 http://www.alternet.org/media/65943
Mathews, James. "News". U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 4/02/2010
Media Coverage Of Breast Cancer Focuses Too Little On Prevention, Study Suggests". ScienceDaily LLC . 03/29/2010
"Media raise cancer fears". BBC NEWS. 3/30/10
"MTV News host Aliya-Jasmine Sovani Busts Out The Bikini In Support of Breast Cancer Awareness". ChannelCanada.com. 4/02/2010
Reichman, M.D., Bonnie. “Aspirin and Breast Cancer: The Media Does It Again!". Women’s Voices for Change, Inc.. 4/04/2010
Russell, Cristine. "Living Can Be Hazardous to your Health: How the News Media Cover Cancer Risks". Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs. 4/02/2010
Sovani, Aliya-Jasmine. "Save the Boobs". ReThink. 04/01/2010
"The Mission". Keep-A-Breast. 4/05/2010
