Sensationalistic journalism - new breastfeeding research

[allaboard]

I woke up listening to Radio 4, and it went something like this "New research has found that breastfed babies have fewer behavioural issues such as anxiety than bottle fed babies. The research was carried out over 5+ years using over 7 thousand children, and even taking into consideration variables such as Mum's who BF are higher educated and older, there is still a significant 30% difference in outcome between the two groups of children. It's unclear whether the constituents of breastmilk or the closeness of BFing are the more significant factor"

This afternoon, my local news went something like this "New research out today: bottle feeding your baby will make them more likely to be liars and thieves".

I really does my nipples in when I hear this misreporting (such as the second new report). I struggled to BF but I made it through, however i don't judge those who couldn't manage to and gave up, so i am really angry and uncomfortable with this type of sensationalist, dishonest reporting. I would fully expect Mums who ended up bottlefeeding to feel very upset by what are essentially important findings. Reporting like that does nothing to promote BFing, i find it immoral and socially irresponsible.

 

[Nibblenic]

Maybe I at the age of 27 go out and rob the corner shop. I can plead it was because I was not breast fed.

Ive started to roll my eyes at all of these studies tbh. I think its getting a little excessive.

 

[Cloberella]

Maybe I at the age of 27 go out and rob the corner shop. I can plead it was because I was not breast fed.

Ive started to roll my eyes at all of these studies tbh. I think its getting a little excessive.

I don't think the OP's problem was with the study necessarily, but with the way it has been reported.

Saying bottle feeding is more likely to make them lie and steal is ridiculous though, and they've obviously reported it that way to cause controversy .

 

[Lightworker]

I agree that sensationalism just ruins the image of BFing - or anything for that matter but I also think some people are quick to take offence at things. The study says FF babies have a higher chance of behavioural issues, but some defensive people interpret this as "if you FF your child will be a delinquent" when the two things are completely different. A higher chance might not be even anywhere near significant to impact really. Its quite annoying. I hate adding caveats cuz people are quick t take offence

 

[Laura2919]

Its just study after study about babies these days, just another way of making a parent feel worthless

These people should find themselves a proper job!

Its all about forcing parents into breastfeeding their children because its 'better' its only better when it works for mum and baby.

 

[allaboard]

I just couldn't believe that these so-called journalists have lowered themselves to this kind of reporting and if i were the researchers I would be pretty peeved that 5 years of work has been lowered to that. I hate that the image of BFing is one littered by what people feels are "lactivists" and anti-bottle feeders, and reports like this strengthen this image and the negativity. Bloody local news reporters, I hate their delivery anyway!

 

[Blue_bumpkin]

Id be pretty peeved if my 5 years of valid research had been reduced to a bunch of snidey, provocative headlines such as that. Research IS a proper job and a very important one at that. Researchers are the ones behind the scenes trying to understand things so that perhaps we might better them, no matter what those things might be. Its a shame they are shown such little credit.

Makes my blood boil.

 

[OmiOmen]

I hate this sort of reporting too, I see things in the media saying research shows/experts say and and then read something that is clearly based on a line or so of the journal article it was taken from. It is often missing salient information, as your example shows; if I read that breastfed children were less likely to have behavioural issues and nothing else, I would wonder (from an academic point of view at least) where the mention of socio-economic status was. These studies are very important, but no wonder the general public feel negative towards them when they tend not to read the published work but the tabloids (radios, ect's..) interpretation of them.

Journalists will tend to say they are using their education (as they do tend to be well-educated, white, middle class men....even the ones working for tabloids) and interpreting these journal articles into a more readable format for the average person. The reality though is that journalists are flat out taught about sensationalising any story they can for the more interesting/shocking information while not veering off from the truth enough to get themselves (and their employer) sent to court or if they do lie to only do it with people who can not afford to sue (or costs outweigh the the size of the story). I realise I may sound cynical here but I am working my way though a joint honours degree at the moment and one half is in the subject of media writing and the lecturers are freelance journalists now but have all had successful careers working for the tabloids so my judgements are coming from a fairly direct source. Worst of all is that the people researching and writing these things will look at all the information but are happy to pass off the shock value knowing it can be sending a damaging image (I am thinking about the reporting of the MMR jab in particular here).

 

[Ozzieshunni]

I had a teacher tell me once that if you were spanked as a child, you were going to become a juvenile delinquent. I think with these studies it's just one of those things we've got to brush off and move on and do what we think is best as parents.