Online media reporting of global mortality rates and causes: a content analysis
Treharne, T.; Heneghan, C.
Show abstract
IntroductionThe online news media covers mortality-related topics such as illnesses, diseases, violent deaths, and fatalities caused by environmental or lifestyle factors. This frequent coverage, coupled with the medias significant influence on public opinion, can make the public overestimate certain health risks while underestimating others. ObjectiveThis study aggregates global death figures from online media reports, compares them to official annual death figures, and analyses online medias over- or under-reporting of specific death causes. DesignThis content analysis examined online media articles from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2021, citing mortality figures for different causes of death. By utilising global news databases Dow Jones Factiva and Nexis and the news aggregator service Google News, it identified articles that referenced annual death statistics for various causes. These findings were used to determine the overall global death count based on aggregated figures from online media reports on causes of death. A comparison was then made with the official global death total. Additionally, each cause of death was compared to the most reliable secondary source, such as the best available official figures or academic research, to discern areas where the media may exaggerate or downplay specific causes. ResultsThe media attributed more than twice the actual deaths in 2020, RR =2.43: 155 million media compared (20.1 per 1000) to the UN-reported 63.7 million deaths (8.3 per 1000). Official or academic sources also overestimate the number of deaths, with 144.3 million deaths reported annually (18.7 per 1000). Across 44 death-cause categories, the medias figure for annual deaths matched the best available source ten times (23%) but failed to identify the best source in the other 34 categories. Notable areas where the media over-reported causes included Influenza (65,000 reported vs 14,500 actual, RR:4.48), natural disasters (60,000 reported vs 15,071 actual, RR:3.97) and overwork (2.8m reported vs 745,000 actual, RR:3.76). ConclusionsOnline media reports indicate an overestimation of global mortality compared to the actual annual mortality rate and the rate supported by official and academic research sources. There is a tendency for over-reporting of death rates in areas that attract media attention, such as influenza and natural disasters, while there is under-reporting in less attention-grabbing areas, like digestive and liver diseases.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Media coverage and speculation about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on suicide: A content analysis of UK news 92%
- Online information on face masks in Italian and English websites: deficiencies and responsibilities of search engines 91%
- Economic and social impacts of COVID-19 and public health measures: results from an anonymous online survey in Thailand, Malaysia, the United Kingdom, Italy and Slovenia 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 90%
- Voices from the frontline: findings from a thematic analysis of a rapid online global survey of maternal and newborn health professionals facing the COVID-19 pandemic 89%
- Public sentiment towards vaccination: characterizing global patterns and drivers of scientific research 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Key topics in pandemic health risk communication: A qualitative study of expert opinions and knowledge 91%
- Inequalities in COVID-19 inequalities research: who had the capacity to respond? 90%
- Can scientists fill the science journalism void? Online public engagement with science stories authored by scientists 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A step-by-step Researcher’s Guide to the use of an AI-based transformer in epidemiology: an exploratory analysis of ChatGPT using the STROBE checklist for observational studies 89%
- Social relationships and activities following elimination of SARS-CoV-2: a qualitative cross-sectional study 88%
- Are COVID-19 data reliable? The case of the European Union 88%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.