"Blaming the media" is

a catch-phrase that is used in almost cliché-level proportions. But

when it comes to health care, a new study indicates it may be appropriate to fault media coverage for a lack of public knowledge about

health care policy — and by extension the false perception of reproductive

rights as ideological "hot rods" rather than women’s health concerns.

A recently-released Pew Research study conducted with the Kaiser Family Foundation

monitored health coverage from January 2007 to June 2008 to determine

which subjects got the most coverage, and in which media. The study

was designed to be particularly broad-ranging–rather than, for instance,

analyzing how TV news covers breast cancer, the study looked at how

television, radio, print, online outlets and other forms of media covered

everything heath-related, from specific diseases to health policy and

more.

What were the results? According

to the report, "News about health occupies a relatively small amount

of American news coverage across all platforms: 3.6% of news during

2007 and the first half of 2008." In a list of most frequently covered

topics, health came in eighth–far above religion, education

and celebrities, but below the economy, crime, foreign affairs and politics.

These results, while hardly

thrilling, don’t seem abysmal at first. Health gets more coverage

than celebrities, after all, which seems like a victory in our current

climate. But compounding the small amount of attention devoted to health,

the breakdown within existing health coverage shows a tendency

to focus on controversial or sensational aspects of health issues, leaving

vital policy information behind. One need only to think about the extreme

health stories on the nightly news (Are your pills contaminated? Are

your children at risk from a rare strain of X?) to understand the crux

of the problem. Why focus on the actual public ramifications

of various diseases and policies when Jenny

McCarthy and Amanda Peet are going at it over autism ? Or we can lure people in front of

the TV by frightening them?

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

This is a situation only too

familiar to reproductive health advocates, who often see the public health crises caused

by lack of reproductive health care submerged beneath the kind of pitched battles

or titillating stories the media loves.

Within the small percentage

of health news, outlets focused 41.7% on specific diseases, the kind

of coverage which spikes somewhat when a celebrity like Elizabeth Edwards,

Tony Snow, or Tim Russert has cancer or a heart attack. Public health

issues made up 30.9% of coverage, including stories like the tuberculosis-infected man-on-plane scandal ,

and reports on gossipy health problems like binge drinking .

Coming in third, actual health

policy made up only 24.7% of general "health" coverage–and this

includes the political battles during the primaries and the SCHIP vote.

Considering that the American health care system is essentially broken,

this is a dismal indicator: as the report notes, that means that health

policy news made up less than 1% of media coverage during the

time period. This is not to say that other aspects of health care coverage

are unimportant (certainly, diseases and public health issues are probably

not covered deeply enough), but instead that sensational and celebrity-oriented

slants to health stories often obscure the practical health issues that

affect media consumers’ lives.

An example of this is the fact

that HIV/AIDS stories made up only 2.2% of stories related to health,

even though misinformation

about the (still very much present) disease persists , and dissemination of accurate information

is crucial to preventing its transmission.

Newsflash: RH Issues Are

Health Issues

The lack of coverage when it

comes to HIV/AIDS is emblematic of a general failure when it comes to

the portrayal of sexual health and reproductive rights in the news media.

In our scandal and controversy-oriented news culture, reproductive health issues are treated as controversial flashpoints

or political footballs rather than genuine public and personal health

crises. Many media personalities and reporters caught on to fact that

there is a connection between ideology and health during John McCain’s

infamous placing of "air quotes" around the word "women’s health"

during a debate–but there has been little follow up on that connection.

One example of the way the

discussion is turned away from health and towards "morality" is

the firestorm over the HHS regulations that would allow providers

to "opt out" of medical procedures they find objectionable.

In focusing on the consciences and internal struggles of health care providers,

rather than the difficulty women have accessing proper care, the media

does more damage than it possibly can be aware of.

Last month in Slate , Melinda Hennenberger offered an egregious

example of this: she spun a piece about the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that

would expand women’s access to reproductive care and abortion, into

an assault on the moral consciences of Catholics. Presto — a bill meant

to protect women’s health becomes an ideological war on the Catholic

church. A juicier story, but a misleading one.

Rewire refuted Hennenberger’s factual speculation

and even her colleague Dahlia Lithwick reminded

readers that women’s health hangs in the balance, and often gets lost

in the shuffle, when this question is debated.

An example of how to address reproductive health issues in a non-sensational, health-based manner is Rachel Maddow’s

recent interview with Melissa Harris Lacewell, which was also discussed

on this site . The

most remarkable thing about the interview was that rather than being

framed as a left-right battle royal, the priority of women’s health

needs was acknowledged by both interviewer and interviewee, and was

the jumping off point for their discussion rather than the conclusion. They still managed to talk for a long time, and it was even interesting!

There is a market for sensible,

factual health coverage because it affects people’s lives. It’s a

wonder that so many arbiters of what’s "news" have yet to discover

that. Framing reproductive health issues from a public health perspective, and boosting coverage of health care policy, are absolutely crucial to changing the

frame on reproductive rights back to what it’s really about: women’s

access to the care they need.