Inge Kersbergen1, Penny Buykx1,2, Alan Brennan1,3, Jamie Brown3,4, Susan Michie3,4, John Holmes1,3. 1. School of Health and Related Research, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. 2. School of Humanities and Social Science, The University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia. 3. SPECTRUM Consortium, London, UK. 4. Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The UK low-risk drinking guidelines were revised in 2016. Drinkers were primarily informed about the guidelines via news media, but little is known about this coverage. This study investigated the scale and content of print and online textual news media coverage of drinking guidelines in England from February 2014 to October 2017. METHODS: We searched the Nexis database and two leading broadcasters' websites (BBC and Sky) for articles mentioning the guidelines. We randomly selected 500 articles to code for reporting date, accuracy, tone, context and purpose of mentioning the guidelines, and among these, thematically analysed 200 randomly selected articles. RESULTS: Articles mentioned the guidelines regularly. Reporting peaked when the guidelines revision was announced (7.4% of articles). The most common type of mention was within health- or alcohol-related articles and neutral in tone (70.8%). The second most common was in articles discussing the guidelines' strengths and weaknesses, which were typically negative (14.8%). Critics discredited the guidelines' scientific basis by highlighting conflicting evidence and arguing that guideline developers acted politically. They also questioned the ethics of limiting personal autonomy to improve public health. Criticisms were partially facilitated by announcing the guidelines alongside a 'no safe level of drinking' message, and wider discourse misrepresenting the guidelines as rules, and highlighting apparent inconsistencies with standalone scientific papers and international guidelines. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: News media generally covered drinking guidelines in a neutral and accurate manner, but in-depth coverage was often negative and sought to discredit the guidelines using scientific and ethical arguments.
INTRODUCTION: The UK low-risk drinking guidelines were revised in 2016. Drinkers were primarily informed about the guidelines via news media, but little is known about this coverage. This study investigated the scale and content of print and online textual news media coverage of drinking guidelines in England from February 2014 to October 2017. METHODS: We searched the Nexis database and two leading broadcasters' websites (BBC and Sky) for articles mentioning the guidelines. We randomly selected 500 articles to code for reporting date, accuracy, tone, context and purpose of mentioning the guidelines, and among these, thematically analysed 200 randomly selected articles. RESULTS: Articles mentioned the guidelines regularly. Reporting peaked when the guidelines revision was announced (7.4% of articles). The most common type of mention was within health- or alcohol-related articles and neutral in tone (70.8%). The second most common was in articles discussing the guidelines' strengths and weaknesses, which were typically negative (14.8%). Critics discredited the guidelines' scientific basis by highlighting conflicting evidence and arguing that guideline developers acted politically. They also questioned the ethics of limiting personal autonomy to improve public health. Criticisms were partially facilitated by announcing the guidelines alongside a 'no safe level of drinking' message, and wider discourse misrepresenting the guidelines as rules, and highlighting apparent inconsistencies with standalone scientific papers and international guidelines. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: News media generally covered drinking guidelines in a neutral and accurate manner, but in-depth coverage was often negative and sought to discredit the guidelines using scientific and ethical arguments.
Authors: Shawna L Mercer; David A Sleet; Randy W Elder; Krista Hopkins Cole; Ruth A Shults; James L Nichols Journal: Ann Epidemiol Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 3.797
Authors: John Holmes; Emma Beard; Jamie Brown; Alan Brennan; Petra S Meier; Susan Michie; Abigail K Stevely; Laura Webster; Penny F Buykx Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2020-07-19 Impact factor: 3.710