Introduction

Homeopathy, a therapeutic method using highly diluted preparations of substances based on the ‘like cures like principle',1 is one of the most popular methods of CAM.2 Despite its popularity, scientists who rely strictly on evidence‐based knowledge have generally viewed homeopathy with a great deal of scepticism, partly because most homeopathic treatments contain no single molecule and thus cannot cause health improvement according to the current scientific understanding of general pharmaceutical impact; instead, homeopathy relies heavily on the placebo effect.3, 4

There are at least two substantial arguments that cast homeopathy in a negative light. First, health professionals' practice of using deception – a prerequisite for the placebo effect to occur – is unethical because this practice relies heavily on an out‐dated conception of human beings. Deception practices deny a patient's autonomy and ability for rational thinking.5 Second, homeopathy can lead to adverse effects, some of which are serious.6 One of the most challenging critiques refers to the highly problematic phenomenon that for some patients, the use of homeopathy may mean that effective treatments are given too late or not at all.7, 8

The question emerges, then, of how homeopathy could have survived for so many centuries? One possible reason is that a patient's belief in the effectiveness and appropriateness of homeopathy is at least partly the result of their not being well‐informed about homeopathy's underlying mechanisms. One can speculate that widely shared myths (e.g. water ‘remembers') contribute to a favourable, uncritical or even enthusiastic endorsement of homeopathy. It is the duty of scientists to spread evidence‐based knowledge (i.e. scientific communication); thus, the dissemination of evidence‐based knowledge concerning the effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) of homeopathy is important.

The mass media represents an important factor in this dissemination process. Journalists select and shape potential health news content and thus construct mediated health realities that, in turn, can contribute to the public's mental picture of health, including issues related to controversial CAMs such as homeopathy. Importantly, research has shown that mediated realities can be biased in several important ways.9 For example, audiences can be misled by reports that cast homeopathy in an unjustifiably sympathetic light.10 News coverage, however, can also contribute to sceptical attitudes when the media invites readers to treat homeopathy with caution;11 thus, the media emphasises positive as well as negative content. This has also been revealed for other health domains, such as the media's role in suicide prevention.12

Because a journalist's reporting can be influenced by their own attitudes,13 their positive attitudes towards homeopathy may contribute to more favourable, uncritical and even enthusiastic news coverage. Journalists with positive attitudes may, for example, report more frequently on homeopathy, may provide a forum for homeopathy ‘experts' who take an enthusiastic position, or may report less often on scientific studies that show no clinical effects of homeopathy. Although the relevance of the media has already been acknowledged, previous research has not investigated how journalists – humans who professionally produce media content – view homeopathy. This is unfortunate, because it is journalists in their role as information ‘gatekeepers'14 who decide what becomes news and thus what becomes widely shared mediated health reality.