This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Jerry E. Bishop
Wall Street Journal New York, NY

JAMA. 1992;267(7):930.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—It was personally pleasing that Koren and Klein¹ gave such high marks to the Wall Street Journal coverage of the two JAMA articles^2,3 on radiation exposure and cancer risks. But to those of us in the news business, their finding that newspapers are biased against negative medical studies seems obvious and the reason for it quite simple.

At any newspaper or magazine published for the profit of its owners, the first and foremost criterion for deciding whether to publish a story is whether it contains information that readers would like to know. In the matter of the two JAMA articles,^2,3 the Wall Street Journal gave equal coverage to both studies because it has many readers in labor, industry, government, business, and the professions who have a vested interest in keeping up with the latest scientific findings—positive and negative—on the controversy over the effects . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?