Anatomy of media hype

As seen here, by Chris Rangel.

When the media begin operating with a mob mentality it's easy to understand how this skews the public's perceptions of the reality of these stories.

Media swarms or clustering and over-reporting on stories is one side of the problem. On the other side is selective reporting that is a hugely practiced but little known phenomenon.

For example, in the late 80's and early 90's the media was swarming over reports that silicone breast implants were being linked to autoimmune diseases but when several epidemiological studies were published that found no links what-so-ever, hardly anyone in the media noticed.

But what about media hype contained within a specific article? Jack Shafer from Slate takes a look at the latest media swarm; the "epidemic" in methamphetamine abuse and picks apart the "reporting" by the Washington Post.

Apparently poor reporting tends to cherry pick from the statistics buffet, use broad terms that are open to interpretation like "epidemic" without being more specific, and avoids details and exact information.

"Health officials say 75 percent of patients in some clinics have abused the drug, a big increase from a few years ago"

Which health officials?
How many clinics?
What clinics?
An increase of how much?
How many years ago?

Best of all is the use of sources who at first glance should be "experts" on this topic but at best have only anecdotal data and at worst have a conflict of interest in saying something that contradicts the slant of the story!

The use of law enforcement personnel as sources for stories on drug abuse trends is about a useful as a sports announcer who informs us that the team that scores the most points is going to win. Have you ever met a police officer who actually knows national or regional crime rates (or a doctor who knows national shifts in HMO enrollment rates)?

And what department spokesperson is going to admit to a trend that would result in lower funding for their department?

Best of all is the habit of "reporters" in assuming that their "expert" sources are actually experts who get their ideas and opinions strictly from data, independent of previous media hype! All of this likely results in the following;

1. Law enforcement official reads about the latest "epidemic" in drug abuse
   
2. this article focuses his/her attention on relevant cases in the department
   
3. reporter interviews official about these cases and asks opinion on trends
   
4. official confirms that these cases are increasing without providing hard data or only partial statistics or anecdotal data
   
5. reporter reports that official confirms that these cases are on the increase
6. official reads this story that confirms the latest "epidemic" in drug abuse.
   

And so on and so forth.

Chicken or egg? Are they creating the news or just reporting it?