Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research

Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research ar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:PloS one 2020-11, Vol.15 (11), p.e0242133-e0242133
Hauptverfasser: Amberg, Amanda, Saunders, Darren N
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page e0242133
container_issue 11
container_start_page e0242133
container_title PloS one
container_volume 15
creator Amberg, Amanda
Saunders, Darren N
description Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.
doi_str_mv 10.1371/journal.pone.0242133
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2458949746</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A641043156</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_a89e9e1fe70a467e8ec004254139d158</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A641043156</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd6eaed0905a02000840accbe4f652445f02d9afb43327158ac23f46ef3470a33</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkluP0zAQhSMEYi_wDxBEQkLw0OJbnIQHpKXiUrTSStxerakzbl2ldtdOFvbf426zqwbtA8qDI_s7Zzzjk2XPKJlSXtK3a98HB-106x1OCROMcv4gO6Y1ZxPJCH948H-UncS4JqTglZSPsyPOqZS8YMfZ1xk4jSG3Lu9WmDv8Hd_lHyzEHFyTX_bQ2u56d7rBxkIecOtDZ90y9ybXe2nAiBD06kn2yEAb8emwnmY_P338MfsyOb_4PJ-dnU-0rFk3MY1EwIbUpADCCCGVIKD1AoWRBROiMIQ1NZiF4JyVtKhAM26ERMNFSYDz0-zF3nfb-qiGMUTFRFHVoi6FTMR8TzQe1mob7AbCtfJg1c2GD0sFqQvdooKqxhqpwWQtZIkVakIEKwTldZOKJ6_3Q7V-kWag0XUB2pHp-MTZlVr6K1WmbljBksHrwSD4yx5jpzY2amxbcOj7m3vXvKhZWSb05T_o_d0N1BJSA9YZn-rqnak6k4ISwWmxo6b3UOlrcGN1yoyxaX8keDMSJKbDP90S-hjV_Pu3_2cvfo3ZVwfsCqHtVtG3fWe9i2NQ7EEdfIwBzd2QKVG7yN9OQ-0ir4bIJ9nzwwe6E91mnP8F-IT5Jw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2458949746</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><creator>Amberg, Amanda ; Saunders, Darren N</creator><contributor>Berger, Vance</contributor><creatorcontrib>Amberg, Amanda ; Saunders, Darren N ; Berger, Vance</creatorcontrib><description>Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242133</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33166352</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Bias ; Biomedical Research ; Breast cancer ; Cancer ; Cancer research ; Colorectal cancer ; Decision making ; Discrimination ; Evaluation ; Gastric cancer ; Gender ; Human bias ; Humans ; Journalistic objectivity ; Literature reviews ; Mass Media - standards ; Media coverage ; Medical research ; Medical screening ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Melanoma ; Meta-analysis ; Mortality ; Neoplasms - psychology ; News ; People and Places ; Periodicals as Topic - standards ; Prostate cancer ; Scholarly publishing ; Science Policy ; Scientists ; Skin cancer</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-11, Vol.15 (11), p.e0242133-e0242133</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 Amberg, Saunders. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 Amberg, Saunders 2020 Amberg, Saunders</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd6eaed0905a02000840accbe4f652445f02d9afb43327158ac23f46ef3470a33</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd6eaed0905a02000840accbe4f652445f02d9afb43327158ac23f46ef3470a33</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-0924-0513</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652252/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7652252/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,864,885,2102,2928,23866,27924,27925,53791,53793,79600,79601</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33166352$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Berger, Vance</contributor><creatorcontrib>Amberg, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saunders, Darren N</creatorcontrib><title>Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.</description><subject>Bias</subject><subject>Biomedical Research</subject><subject>Breast cancer</subject><subject>Cancer</subject><subject>Cancer research</subject><subject>Colorectal cancer</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Discrimination</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Gastric cancer</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Human bias</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Journalistic objectivity</subject><subject>Literature reviews</subject><subject>Mass Media - standards</subject><subject>Media coverage</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medical screening</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Melanoma</subject><subject>Meta-analysis</subject><subject>Mortality</subject><subject>Neoplasms - psychology</subject><subject>News</subject><subject>People and Places</subject><subject>Periodicals as Topic - standards</subject><subject>Prostate cancer</subject><subject>Scholarly publishing</subject><subject>Science Policy</subject><subject>Scientists</subject><subject>Skin cancer</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkluP0zAQhSMEYi_wDxBEQkLw0OJbnIQHpKXiUrTSStxerakzbl2ldtdOFvbf426zqwbtA8qDI_s7Zzzjk2XPKJlSXtK3a98HB-106x1OCROMcv4gO6Y1ZxPJCH948H-UncS4JqTglZSPsyPOqZS8YMfZ1xk4jSG3Lu9WmDv8Hd_lHyzEHFyTX_bQ2u56d7rBxkIecOtDZ90y9ybXe2nAiBD06kn2yEAb8emwnmY_P338MfsyOb_4PJ-dnU-0rFk3MY1EwIbUpADCCCGVIKD1AoWRBROiMIQ1NZiF4JyVtKhAM26ERMNFSYDz0-zF3nfb-qiGMUTFRFHVoi6FTMR8TzQe1mob7AbCtfJg1c2GD0sFqQvdooKqxhqpwWQtZIkVakIEKwTldZOKJ6_3Q7V-kWag0XUB2pHp-MTZlVr6K1WmbljBksHrwSD4yx5jpzY2amxbcOj7m3vXvKhZWSb05T_o_d0N1BJSA9YZn-rqnak6k4ISwWmxo6b3UOlrcGN1yoyxaX8keDMSJKbDP90S-hjV_Pu3_2cvfo3ZVwfsCqHtVtG3fWe9i2NQ7EEdfIwBzd2QKVG7yN9OQ-0ir4bIJ9nzwwe6E91mnP8F-IT5Jw</recordid><startdate>20201109</startdate><enddate>20201109</enddate><creator>Amberg, Amanda</creator><creator>Saunders, Darren N</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0924-0513</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20201109</creationdate><title>Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research</title><author>Amberg, Amanda ; Saunders, Darren N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-fd6eaed0905a02000840accbe4f652445f02d9afb43327158ac23f46ef3470a33</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Bias</topic><topic>Biomedical Research</topic><topic>Breast cancer</topic><topic>Cancer</topic><topic>Cancer research</topic><topic>Colorectal cancer</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Discrimination</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Gastric cancer</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Human bias</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Journalistic objectivity</topic><topic>Literature reviews</topic><topic>Mass Media - standards</topic><topic>Media coverage</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medical screening</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Melanoma</topic><topic>Meta-analysis</topic><topic>Mortality</topic><topic>Neoplasms - psychology</topic><topic>News</topic><topic>People and Places</topic><topic>Periodicals as Topic - standards</topic><topic>Prostate cancer</topic><topic>Scholarly publishing</topic><topic>Science Policy</topic><topic>Scientists</topic><topic>Skin cancer</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Amberg, Amanda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saunders, Darren N</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science &amp; Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural &amp; Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies &amp; Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Amberg, Amanda</au><au>Saunders, Darren N</au><au>Berger, Vance</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-11-09</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>e0242133</spage><epage>e0242133</epage><pages>e0242133-e0242133</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Cancer research in the news is often associated with sensationalised and inaccurate reporting, which may give rise to false hopes and expectations. The role of study selection for cancer-related news stories is an important but less commonly acknowledged issue, as the outcomes of primary research are generally less reliable than those of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Few studies have investigated the quality of research that makes the news and no previous analyses of the proportions of primary and secondary research in the news have been found in the literature. We analysed distribution of study types, research sources, reporting quality, gender bias, and national bias in online news reports by four major news outlets in USA, UK and Australia over six-months. We measured significant variation in reporting quality and observed biases in many aspects of cancer research reporting, including the types of study selected for coverage, the spectrum of cancer types, gender of scientists, and geographical source of research represented. We discuss the implications of these findings for guiding accurate, contextual reporting of cancer research, which is critical in helping the public understand complex science, appreciate the outcomes of publicly-funded research, maintain trust, and assist informed decision-making. The striking gender bias observed may compromise high-quality coverage of research by limiting diversity of opinion, reinforces stereotypes and skews public visibility and recognition towards male scientists. Our findings provide useful guidelines for scientists and journalists alike to consider in providing the most informative and accurate reporting of research.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>33166352</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0242133</doi><tpages>e0242133</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0924-0513</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-6203
ispartof PloS one, 2020-11, Vol.15 (11), p.e0242133-e0242133
issn 1932-6203
1932-6203
language eng
recordid cdi_plos_journals_2458949746
source MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Public Library of Science (PLoS); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry
subjects Bias
Biomedical Research
Breast cancer
Cancer
Cancer research
Colorectal cancer
Decision making
Discrimination
Evaluation
Gastric cancer
Gender
Human bias
Humans
Journalistic objectivity
Literature reviews
Mass Media - standards
Media coverage
Medical research
Medical screening
Medicine and Health Sciences
Melanoma
Meta-analysis
Mortality
Neoplasms - psychology
News
People and Places
Periodicals as Topic - standards
Prostate cancer
Scholarly publishing
Science Policy
Scientists
Skin cancer
title Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T08%3A34%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cancer%20in%20the%20news:%20Bias%20and%20quality%20in%20media%20reporting%20of%20cancer%20research&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=Amberg,%20Amanda&rft.date=2020-11-09&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=e0242133&rft.epage=e0242133&rft.pages=e0242133-e0242133&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0242133&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA641043156%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2458949746&rft_id=info:pmid/33166352&rft_galeid=A641043156&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_a89e9e1fe70a467e8ec004254139d158&rfr_iscdi=true