Mills 1

Joshuah Mills
Professor Fran Voltz
UWRT 1102 - 30
12 October 2014
Annotated Bibliography
Fishman, Jessica M., David Casarett, and Leonard Davis. "Mass Media and Medicine: When the
Most Trusted Media Mislead." Mayo Clinic Proceedings 81.3 (2006): 291-293. Print.
Fishman, Casarett, and Davis analyze the impact of media on the public's
perception of medicine. Specifically, they highlight, by means of an in depth case study,
how misrepresentation by media of an illness creates a stigma for individuals with
neurological disorders in order to demonstrate how medical facts might be falsified or
exaggerated. They address the fact that errors are found consistently in publications that
are generally considered trustworthy and present the dangers these errors. They conclude
the article by offering advice on how to avoid misinterpretation of medical facts in media
in the future.
This publication provides a sound and highly objective presentation of the
correlation between media and medicine. As this is an informational piece, I will be able
to use the information here to support my argument on media's influence on medicine
without fear of bias. Although the topic of this article fits the overall focus of my essay,
their specific example of stigmatization caused by media provides another point to
support my argument.
This source is highly credible for several reasons: The article is from a popular
and trusted medical journal, is peer reviewed, and all three authors hold doctorate

Mills 2
degrees. This article can be found in databases hosted by numerous educational
institutions. Additionally, the overall writing and consistency of citation in this piece
suggests that it is a scholarly source.
Friedman, Lester D. Cultural Sutures: Medicine and Media. Durham, N.C: Duke University
Press, 2004. Print.
In this book, several academic essays are collected to provide examples of
medias influence on medicine through several mediums from academic print to popular
film. The examples in this anthology are mainly of historical context and provide
examples of medias influence that has already occurred. The writers explore both the
positive and negative impact that media has and arguments focused on either side can be
found in the text. The point of this collection of writings is to provide an explanation of
both the impact and method of influence between media and medicine. Additionally,
there are several examples that explain how healthcare professionals intentionally utilize
media to influence the public.
This book provides numerous examples of medicine in media from the recent
past. Therefore, I will be able to draw from the examples in the book to present historical
context to my argument and to show the outcomes of events that have already occurred.
Although the editor provides examples from several mediums, I will likely draw more
exclusively from examples in advertisements as some of these examples tend to more on
a definitive impact while the focus of many of the other mediums are strictly cultural. In
addition, the writings explaining how media has been used properly by medical
professionals will provide a counterclaim to my thesis, allowing me to cover my topic
from an opposing view as well as my own.

Mills 3
The factuality of the content of this book is hardly disputable. It was published
by Duke University which suggests support from an academic institution. Other
academic sources are cited extensively throughout the text as well, providing sound
evidence for the writers claims. Also, the writers of the essays in this book are of
academic authority, giving even fewer reasons to distrust the writings.
Radford, Benjamin. Media Mythmakers: How Journalists, Activists, and Advertisers Mislead Us.
Amherst, N.Y: Prometheus Books, 2003. Print.
In his book, Benjamin Radford explains in detail how media can and does mislead
us. Radford addresses the ways in which advertising can appeal to different groups of
viewers and how the meaning of these advertisements can carry different meaning
depending on how they are interpreted. He also uncovers how media employs tactics to
mislead their consumers and how journalists are void of responsibility to provide sound
and objective material. Finally, he acknowledges the consequences of misleading
information in media and how it influences us as its viewers.
Although this book does not address medias influence on medicine specifically,
it does offer an overview of the ways media can mislead us in general. Thus, I will be
able to use the points made in this book to create a basis for my argument by providing
evidence and examples on how media can and does generate misinterpretation of facts
among its viewers. I will be able to apply some of the methods explained in this book to
address how media intentionally delivers its information in misleading ways and apply
this fact to medicine directly.
Benjamin Radford is an established author and is known for taking a factual
approach to his writing, including those based on skepticism. His book is supported and

Mills 4
recognized as an academic resource by several educational institutions and has no
apparent refutations to its arguments. Overall, there is no outward evidence to suggest
that this work is not credible.
Shuchman, Miriam, and Michael S. Wilkes. "Medical Scientists and Health News Reporting: a
Case of Miscommunication." Annals of Internal Medicine. 126.12 (1997): 976-82. Print.
In this article, Shuchman and Wilkes argue that the press is blatantly misleading
their viewers by miscommunicating medical and scientific facts. The authors support this
argument by explaining sensationalism, bias and conflict of interest, and overall lack of
access to reliable sources all affect the way that journalist present their reports. The
writers suggest that the underlying cause of media miscommunication is a disconnection
between journalists and medical professionals. Also, for every claim, the writers suggest
steps that would alleviate some of the disconnections between these two parties.
The content of this article provides another factor that leads to miscommunication
in media: disconnection between medical fact and their reports. This provides a new
perspective to support my thesis. Their presentation of the general reasons journalists
intentionally falsify or misreport certain information will also provide further support
these same arguments that are mentioned in some of my other resources. This articles
direct correlation to my topic will provide stern support for the main points of my thesis.
It is exceedingly unlikely that this piece is fallible. The article has been peer
reviewed and published in a medical journal. Additionally, the article is supported by a
database that is owned by the U.S. National Library of Medicine. One writer of this
article holds a PhD and both are Medical Doctors. Because this article was written by
academic and medical professionals, there is little reason to distrust its contents.

Mills 5
Young, Meredith E, Geoffrey R. Norman, and Karin R. Humphreys. "Medicine in the Popular
Press: the Influence of the Media on Perceptions of Disease." Plos One. 3.10 (2008).
Print.
The authors of this article explain how media influences our perception of
medicine, or more specifically the dangers of certain diseases. They present, in great
detail, data collected from three separate experiments with which they tested the
perception of students; the participants of the experiment were either psychology or
medical students. Surprisingly, the experiments concluded that the medical students were
equally as susceptible to media's influence on the topic of disease. In short, the authors
explain that even in cases where facts are not falsified in media, they are still
misinterpreted by its consumers and thus has an impact on our perception.
This article provides sturdy, experiment proven evidence for my essay's thesis. I
will be able to use the experiments described in this piece to directly present instances
where media has influence, even on individuals considered knowledgeable on the topic of
discussion. This article is an example of medias subtle impact where simple exposure
can substantially affect what we perceive.
This article is peer reviewed and written by research professors of McMaster
University specializing in both psychology and epidemiology, therefore their combined
knowledge of the subject is more than sufficient. Their article is also printed in a
trustworthy medical science research journal whose editorial board is composed of
professors from major research universities. This publication is undoubtedly credible and
the presence of any falsification or bias is unlikely.