For this assignment, find and analyze popular press coverage of psychological research.
The popular source you choose must include a psychological claim that you can discuss in some detail. You will find examples of psychological claims in advertising, magazines, the newspaper, or the Internet.
Introduction
According to the cited sources, “Covering traumatic News stories: Factors associated with posttraumatic stress disorder among Journalists” (Smith et al., 2017) is a suitable article that can be used for assessing the accuracy of claims made in prevalent press reporting. The rationale of this study is to observe if and how disclosure to stressful news proceedings might direct to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) between journalists. Extensive media reporting of this topic often includes claims about the emotional effects suffered by the media while coverage on dreadful events and the probable expansion of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Journalist’s Coverage Summary and Claims
The journalist’s critique may include declaration regarding the pervasiveness of PTSD among journalists, the association between coverage on distressing news stories and the inception of PTSD, and potentially fundamental statements concerning the factors that give to the expansion of PTSD in journalists. The reporter may also explore the implications of the study’s result and provide suggestion based on the study.
Original Journal Article Overview
The chief scholarly publication written by Smith et al. (2017) is an experiential research study that observes the association between reporting on traumatic information events and the incidence of PTSD between journalists. The study employs a relationship design to examine the relationship between exposure to traumatic events and the manifestation of symptoms associated with PTSD. The most important variables of attention encompass the level of contact to traumatic news stories and the occurrence of symptoms linked with PTSD. The most important finding of the study conducted by Smith et al. (2017) indicates that journalists who details on traumatic proceedings have an elevated probability of experiencing symptoms associated with PTSD. The study’s findings provide support for theories about the influence of trauma exposure on mental health.
Analysis of Journalist’s Coverage
There are a few notable things to keep in mind while assessing the journalist’s coverage of the scholarly piece. Journalist accurately depicts study’s results by successfully describing study’s major findings and assessing study’s possible consequences for journalists’ mental health. The journalist also does a good job of conveying the major factors included in the research, such as the relationship between frequency of exposure to upsetting news articles and the development of PTSD symptoms. It is possible, nonetheless, for journalists to make mistakes in their reporting. For instance, some may overstate the incidence of PTSD in the media industry or draw conclusions about cause and effect without sufficient data. They may omit to provide key particulars, such as the specific demography under research or the restrictions of the study.
The reporter may have been more faithful to the source material if he or she had been more careful about drawing causal inferences and had stressed the correlational character of the research. In addition to a clear description of the limitations of their research, the authors may have benefited from providing more background information on the study population. It would have been more helpful if the journalist had emphasized the need of self-care and seeking assistance for journalists who are exposed to traumatic situations rather than providing simplistic advice based on the study’s results.
Using the three causal criteria is essential for determining whether or not journalistic assertions of causation are accurate. The journalist’s failure to account for a possible causal timeline between exposure to news of tragedy and the development of post-traumatic stress disorder is unacceptable. It is crucial to evaluate whether or not a reasonable mechanism links these two things, and whether or not all other possible explanations have been exhausted. If the journalist had made proper causal statements, they would have supplied substantiating evidence for these three causal principles.
Key Findings
It is vital to evaluate whether the journalist’s prominence is reliable with the most significant results of the scientists. Journalists would have been doing the scientists a good deed if they had highlighted the association between covering complicated news objects and the expansion of PTSD. Though, if the journalist places further stress on secondary discoveries or misinterprets the key result, their priorities may not line up with those of the scientists.
The author must comprise a clear and concise overview of the study’s method, including its research design, data collecting processes, and statistical analysis, for reader to have an apparent depiction of how the study was conducted. The reporter’s incapability to express the processes correctly may point out that they did not fully comprehend the source material.
Conclusion
When assessing the coverage provided by the journalist, it is necessary to take into deliberation the accuracy of the assertions made, the distinction of significant findings, the clarity of the clarification of techniques, and the addition of relevant particulars. By doing an inclusive analysis of the journalist’s reporting of the original journal article, one is able to review if the claim that was made by the popular source is an accurate depiction of the research or whether it has the potential to mislead readers. This may be done in order to found whether or not the claim has the possible to mislead readers.
Reference
Smith, R., Drevo, S., & Newman, E. (2017). Covering traumatic news stories: factors associated with post‐traumatic stress disorder among journalists. Stress and Health, 34(2), 218-226. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2775
