In “Body of Lies,” a recent article published in the Los Angeles Times, Karen Ravn reported on the widespread problem of dishonesty among patients when talking to their doctors. Here, Ravn answers a few questions via e-mail about the piece and her thoughts on the future of health journalism.
Sanhita Reddy: “Body of Lies” explores a particular aspect of health care—communication—that is all too often overlooked by the public, but is in fact a huge problem in the health field. Why did you decide to write about it?
Karen Ravn: The idea for this story actually came from my editor, Rosie Mestel. I believe she thought of it when she participated in a survey where she was asked some personal questions, and it struck her that in a few instances it might be tempting not to tell the absolute truth (although she did). I fear the only credit I can take is for saying sure, I’d love to do the story. It appealed to me especially because I studied the psychology of language and conversation in grad school.
SR: As science and health teams shed staff at media outlets across the country, it becomes increasingly difficult for reporters to cover the news that people need to read. What do you look for that makes a story worth writing, and take priority over others?
KR: Several doctors I talked to for this story said how glad they were that I was writing about this—“instead of writing about the latest gene someone just discovered,” one added. Writing about newly discovered genes is clearly very important too, of course. But I do generally prefer to write about less esoteric subjects that could actually affect readers’ day-to-day lives right away—especially subjects readers are curious about themselves (even if they didn’t know they were curious until they started to read the article).
SR: Online media have become a large part of science and health reporting—blogs like Tara Parker Pope’s Well and The Wall Street Journal’s Health Blog are not only popular, but also help reporters give their readers information that could not fit in the paper. What role do you think these blogs have played in raising health awareness? Benefits? Drawbacks?
KR: I noticed just [the other day] (on WSJ’s Health Blog!) that a new survey from the Pew Research Center found that 25 percent of all American adults have read someone else’s commentary or experience about health or medical issues on an online news group, Web site, or blog. More generally, 61 percent look online for health information, and 42 percent say they or someone they know has been helped by info found on the Internet, while only 3 percent say they or someone they know has been harmed by info found on the Internet. These figures suggest that blogs and other Internet sources are playing a largely useful role in health awareness. Blogs have the benefit of letting readers interact with writers: ask questions, make contrary points, describe personal experiences (that other readers then get to share). On the other hand, not all blogs are as responsible as the NYT’s and the WSJ’s may be assumed to be. And quality control on reader postings ranges from limited to nil. (Still, the survey results suggest that if false info has been posted, it hasn’t had a big negative effect so far.) Of course, the “blogosphere” is just one in a long list of threats to print journalism these days, and I regret (understatement) any extent to which health reporting is a zero-sum game—where the growth of health blogs on the Web means the shrinkage of health sections in the paper.
SR: What are a few health topics that you think are under-the-radar, or need to be better reported?