In Reply We fully agree with the views put forward by du Perron and Finoulst1 in their response to our Research Letter on the media coverage of early detection tests.2 In fact, in a recent survey study that we conducted with 22 journalists in Australia, many of the journalists emphasized the importance of institutions (eg, universities) taking responsibility for the quality of communication about scientific results.3 These journalists felt it was important to avoid overstatements of findings and to improve press release quality by including funding information and test harms, as well as benefits. Several journalists stated that it was often difficult to get independent comments from researchers; for example, researchers may not return a journalist’s calls and emails. Paired with time pressures on journalists, this is not a good recipe for writing balanced stories. As du Perron and Finoulst state,1 the responsibility for improving media reporting needs to be shared, not left to journalists to single-handedly solve.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
O’Keeffe M, Barratt A, Moynihan R. Preventing Media-Based False Hopes—Reply. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(11):1539–1540. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.4450
Monkeypox Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.