I had no intention of posting today; in fact, I liked my post yesterday, Thoughts on Public Relations, and wanted it to stay front and center one more day.
But this morning’s news stories in our two national papers (sorry USA Today) for the first time I can recall conflict. I’m shocked and keep reading each story to ensure I’m not seeing things or my brain is misfiring. It’s not:
- In the Wall Street Journal (everyone knows I read it each morning and it’s my muse for blog fodder) in Personal Journal is the story “Triple That Vitamin D Intake, Panel Prescribes” by Melinda Beck. I read that column and reached for my Vitamin D capsule and promptly popped it. Beck’s reporting is taken from “a long-awaited report from the Institute of Medicine to be released Tuesday.”
- Then, in the New York Times (which I get electronically and scan headlines) this story appeared, “Extra Calcium and Vitamin D Aren’t Needed, Report Says.” This story is written by the highly credible Gina Kolata. Kolata’s reporting is taken from a “report to be released Tuesday.” It’s the same report by the Institute of Medicine.
How on earth can two highly credible, national reporters cover the same report to be released today with two opposite angles?
Should consumers triple their intake of Vitamin D as encouraged in the Wall Street Journal, or should we avoid Vitamin D and calcium because we already get enough, according to the New York Times?
Media Relations Strategy Gone Awry
As a media relations expert, I am disturbed as a professional with these stories. Knowing how national media work, it’s obvious the reporters each got an advance with the institute issuing the report.
- But, how on Earth did the media relations practitioners not know the angles these two reporters would take and recognize each was covering the story from opposite ends of the spectrum?
- Should the finger point at media relations?
- Were spokespeople trained appropriately and was there a message map created?
- Should the finger point at the spokespeople toplining highlights of the research during media interviews ?
- Was the strategy to give each paper a different angle?
- Was there a media strategy?
The national media must clarify the angles they took to cover this research, and that can only happen IF my recommended public relations strategy was executed right now:
- Issue a press release clarifying to the nation whether consumers need more Vitamin D or not (and calcium).
- Issue an Internet press release to crawl the Web immediately to rectify the news.
- Use social media for this entire week to clarify the news about Vitamin D.
- Launch a special website with highlights of the research and share the clarified message.
- Put the spokespeople in front of the national morning show circuit to fix the damage these two stories have done.
- Immediately contact each reporter with the appropriate news peg and asking for their help to rectify the news.
In my 26 years in public relations with a specialty in media relations, I’ve never seen anything like this. Astonishing.
The report doesn’t lend itself to a clear strategy because it did not find a bullet-pointable list of absolutes so it wasn’t easily distillable to a headline – unless it was something simple like: “New Vitamin D recommendations” (Maybe Rob Stein got that right in the Washington Post?)
https://voices.washingtonpost.com/checkup/2010/11/new_vitamin_d_recommendations.html
Without that focus, what should the media strategy be? Is it that the strategy wasn’t followed? Perhaps it was. As counter as it seems, perhaps the strategy to allow highly credible national reporters read a complex, slightly-ambiguous medical report and find different angles.
With a report like that, wouldn’t it be a fair strategy to let reporters find different angles in the hopes that controversy/disagreements/etc might lead to wider coverage? That it might need, for instance, NBC’s Dr. Nancy Snyderman to explain on both the Today show & NBC’s Nightly News what the report REALLY means?
Fascinating thinking, John, and thanks for stopping by to share your perspective. You took this a step further with Wash Post; thanks for that. Where I’m still in shock as a media relations pro for more than two decades (need to qualify that) is with the what went wrong at Institute of Medicine? If this was my story, and the report was not conclusive and it was up to spokespeople to be trained to deliver the accurate message, then I would’ve spent hours and hours in advance of the study’s release to ensure the angles would’ve been clearly communicated. To have two highly credible national media take opposing views is not their fault; the onus is on the Institute of Medicine.
Where I don’t want to agree with you is “the strategy to allow highly credible national reporters to read a complex…medical report and find different angles.”
In media relations we like to think we provide the news angles that get reported; to have this occur not only creates a crisis of information that needs to be resolved by the Institute, but it also creates major confusion with consumers interested in prevention of disease. Should I take triple the Vitamin D or should I run the other way and stay away from it?
Good point about who found the angles — was it the research group reporting/releasing the study, or the reporters? — with a report that could be inconclusive or hard to distill to simple to digest nuggets for readers. And that certain media outlets will use their own panels of medical experts, to break it down for the readers, the audience per what they deem ratings and therefore newsworthy.
Don’t you think it’s the responsibility of the issuing body to define the news coming out of a study? You’re right — media are going to identify the angle that’s corroborated with their sources. The fail is with the issuing organization of the study to begin with. Poor media relations management in my opinion with little advance prep of spokespeople to speak the same message to media (based on training). Thanks, Davina.
There were two health reports released today. One was the “Vitamin D & Calcium, meh – maybe some people sort of need some” report.
The other report was done by the CDC, covers “all of the US Population, and provides the best source of information on population-based cancer incidence for the nation.” The CDC report contained this message: “Most Cervical, Breast Cancers Diagnosed in Late Stages” and went on to explain for 3 types of cancer, how the 5 year survival rate was over 90% for early detection and 11%, 17% and 23% respectively for late-stage discovery.
I would think that a search in Google’s news for “Cancer Report” would show the CDC report, and it does. I know this is unscientific, but that search – https://news.google.com/search?q=cancer+report – shows more than 500 related articles for the Vitamin D report, and only 6 for the Cancer report.
In my world, the CDC report holds much more value for more people, but has received somewhere around 1/90th the coverage, in numbers of media outlets, and probably less than 1/10,000th the coverage in terms of audience. (I say this because while the Vitamin study was covered by ABC, CBS, CNN, Washington Post, NY Times, etc, etc, the Cancer report was covered by 6 outlets that included Medscape, https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733259, Medical News Today, and the perpetually impactful East Meadow Patch. https://eastmeadow.patch.com/articles/follow-the-national-cancer-screening-guidelines
So – in terms of results, I think there are ways in which their questionable strategy seems overwhelmingly effective. Perhaps this isn’t the best comparison, but based on these sorts of results, someone might think that the CDC has nowhere near the media savvy of the Institute of Medicine’s staff.
What do you think?
Davina is sure to weigh in, John, and I’d like to add a few cents, too. (Appreciate you coming back!)
What you’ve described is media relations at its finest. If the CDC elects not to work with national media the likes of WSJ and NYX, they will not get the national exposure for their medical studies.
Take a look at the type of news we’re speaking about today — cancer research/terminal illness versus vitamins — pretty much a no brainer for those media taxed with simpler investigative journalism and a quick story with mass appeal. These consumer-type stories that appear in national media go “viral” automatically because they apply to everyone (who doesn’t take a vitamin?); meanwhile, the Medscape stories tend to circulate among the medical niche and target those specialty medical professionals and not the consuming public.
I’d suggest the CDC is not putting its budget into qualified media relations; if it was, they’d get more bang in more outlets from stories like the one you reference above.
Agree with you, if this was a strategy to get news by releasing the same report with different slants to fan the flames of interest, then yes it is working.
I also think the CDC is essentially a government run operation, which is to say limited funding and thinking in terms of creativity, promotion. I cannot imagine the hoops the information officers have to jump through to get something approved for release; or how optimized for search their releases and reports are; if they have money and resources to reach out to media outlets to “market” their stories.
Plus there’s sex appeal. I mentioned above about taking the report and turning it into easy to digest McNuggets. I have not read the CDC report, but wonder if “You need/don’t need for vitamins” is just an easier sell to a news-weary public than “survival rates.. cancer.. stages.. percentages… numbers” and people don’t like math. 😉
I can’t help it; when I read this story I laughed. Why? I think it appealed to my love of the absurd. And, so much health news seems like this. One day eggs are good, the next they’re bad. I’ve just never seen them good & bad on the same day!
Really though it’s bewildering that two reporters got such different stories out of the same report. How is that possible? Does the report make a clear recommendation or not?
I found this: https://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20024097-10391704.html when I did a search and it says “A new report from the prestigious Institute of Medicine recommends higher doses of vitamin D, but says there’s no proof that megadoses of the vitamin prevent cancer or heart disease. In fact, the report says, high levels of the “sunshine vitamin” could be hazardous.” WHAT?
Jenn! Exactly. How confused can we be right now? Conclusively, this report sucks, and “the prestigious Institute of Medicine” has, what else, EGG on its face.
You’re right, we’ve seen this type of conflicting news regularly, but never on the same day. Bizarre.
Jenn, I share your laughter about “health news” and will enjoy my real butter and high fructose corn syrup (Coke Classic) without guilt. 😉
Two things I predict: 1) As the media reps hit the morning show circuit as Jayme suggests, the closing line from the talking heads: “As with any exercise and diet change, consult your doctor first.” The finger will point back at the doctors, who look to the panels and studies for data, blah blah. 2) The next group to step up will be the vitamin manufacturers, who’ll jump on the chance to sell more product. Sad, but probably true.
As said in the post, I read the WSJ and reached for my Vitamin D bottle; popped that pill faster than a chipmunk running down it’s hole.
Jayme, There is a strategy miss here, I am just not sure by whom. If the results of the report are really inconclusive, then I’m not sure of a solution other than announcing “further study warranted.” It is telling that two national papers received advances, and essentially take opposite views on the results… in the Headlines.
Looking at the stories, the WSJ for example puts a sidebar of those groups that do need more vitamin D, not everyone; went on to talk about the confusion in the data. The NYT said “most Americans” and talked of regular healthy diets without supplements, and seemed to put it back on the primary care physicians, those who recommend and test for these levels. IDK.. but it seems both stories hedge their bets a little. To John’s point, it’s about readership and ratings; maybe reporting it in such sharp terms (esp. in the headlines) gets them something.
For the group releasing the report, IOM — did/would they have released the reports with different top sheet results? To get more coverage? I agree they need to “fix” this. Reread their own study and clarify those top results: 1) what was conclusive, what was not and 2) if they can, be more clear on who should and who should not increase their supplement intake. Then get in front of the media with a clear message? FWIW.
Absolutely agree. I like your further insight and take on the media perspectives and the time you took to explore deeper. Thanks!
Don’t know if we can do a lot about how the different papers spin their stories. They are focused on their own goals and readers. And, in this case, both items are true. NPR (my Wall Street Journal) covered this yesterday. From what I heard, the recommendation is for the current recommended daily amount to be tripled. However that’s still going to make the recommended amount FAR less than the 1000 plus mg’s that proponents recommend. Also, the research surprised even the researchers in showing that most people had no vitamin D deficiency. So, although they are upping the daily recommended dose, most people are getting enough Vitamin D, as is. Both papers are correct, then.
Perhaps the issue is just that headlines aren’t a very good way to convey the complicated findings in research reports…
Actually, in my media relations world we do indeed “spin” a story and do not leave an inconclusive study to happenstance. NPR’s report followed the Wall Street Journal recommendation to triple Vitamin D whilst the New York Times said take no more we have enough. I read both papers’ stories line by line and it wasn’t just a headline gone awry by the copy desk. These reports conflicted to the point of being highly confusing for consumers. This was a total shock to see for me and in all my years had never seen such conflict of information from the same study. My fingers point to the Institute of Medicine for failure to qualify this research. Thanks for your thoughts, Neicole.