Even though they receive minimal healthcare funding, chronic diseases are the leading cause of death in the United States. They account for 70% of deaths in the U.S. annually, with six in 10 Americans suffering from at least one chronic condition. However, coverage of this public health crisis is eclipsed by coverage of risks such as homicide and terrorism—incidents that are far more likely to grab readers’ attention.
Calvin Isch, a doctoral student at the Annenberg School for Communication and a member of the Computational Social Science Lab (CSSLab), explored this bias and imbalance in media coverage in a recent paper. Isch found that the outlets covered tended to amplify sensational risks while underrepresenting chronic risks, highlighting a disparity between risks covered by the media and the mortality risks that statistically threaten Americans the most.
Using natural language processing techniques, Isch collected monthly data on 14 different mortality risks using keyword searches on 823,406 major U.S. news outlet articles that were published between 1999 to 2020.
In addition to comparing mortality risks and media coverage, Isch’s analysis looked for mentions concerning health interventions in order to determine if bias manifested in other ways. He found that mitigation strategies fell under three main categories: policy, behavioral, and technological. Articles on chronic diseases usually emphasized changes to individual behavior, while those on sensational risks focused more on collective policy solutions.
This story is by Delphine Gardiner and Jonathan Allan. Read more at Annenberg School for Communication.
