Siegel, Zachary A, Brown, Abigail, Devendorf, Andrew et al. · Chronic illness · 2018 · DOI
Researchers examined 214 newspaper articles about ME/CFS published between 1987 and 2013 to see how the illness was described to the public. They found that newspapers often got the facts wrong or incomplete—nearly 1 in 5 headlines used the wrong name for the illness, most articles didn't explain how to diagnose it, and half didn't mention any treatments. This study shows that people reading the news may have received confusing or incomplete information about ME/CFS.
Media coverage shapes public understanding and attitudes toward ME/CFS, influencing patient experiences, healthcare provider knowledge, and research funding priorities. This study documents systematic inaccuracies and omissions in how newspapers portrayed the illness, highlighting the need for improved science communication and media literacy around ME/CFS. Understanding these communication gaps helps advocates, researchers, and clinicians develop better strategies for public education.
This study does not prove that inaccurate media coverage directly caused reduced research funding, delayed diagnoses, or negative health outcomes—it only demonstrates that the coverage was often incomplete or misleading. The analysis is limited to American newspapers and does not assess other media types (television, online, social media) or international coverage. The codebook's validity in capturing all relevant dimensions of coverage was not independently validated.
About the PEM badge: “PEM required” means post-exertional malaise was an explicit required diagnostic criterion for participant inclusion in this study — not that PEM was studied, observed, or discussed. Studies using criteria that do not require PEM (e.g. Fukuda, Oxford) are tagged “PEM not required”. How the atlas works →
Contribute
Private, reviewed by a human. Not a public comment thread.