Educating the masses: suggestions for improving online concussion information via the mainstream media.

It was said by Jim Morrison that “whoever controls the media controls the mind” [1] and the power of the media to shape and inform opinions has never been greater. Mainstream news outlets play a pivotal role in the modern age, and public health is included in the scope of influence of the media [2]. Previous research has explored how social media has portrayed sports concussion; Twitter has been highlighted for its rapid dissemination mechanisms [3], while concussion-related content on YouTube predominantly arose from news and media organizations [4]. Given the current high profile of sports concussion in the news, it is unsurprising that attention has turned toward its representation and portrayal in the media. A recent study from Ahmed and Hall [5] discussed the description of sports concussion in online news articles, and demonstrated inconsistencies in the terminology used to describe concussion. From 200 news articles retrieved, the terms ‘head injury’ and ‘brain injury’ were only used in 30 and 21% of cases, respectively, suggesting that the seriousness of these injuries may be downplayed by the terminology used to describe them. In addition, 10% of the articles used inappropriate modifiers, that is, words such as ‘mild’ or ‘moderate’ to describe the concussive injury. These descriptions were often made by journalists, leading the authors to create a checklist (the ‘Media Concussion Checklist’) in order to educate journalists and facilitate consistency in reporting about concussions. The descriptions used by the media in reference to concussion-related decision-making are noteworthy; for example, the decision by a 2016 Olympic Games gymnast to continue competing after a head injury being described as ‘lionhearted’ [6]. This phrasing creates a link between an individual’s personal character and healthcare decision-making that is inherently problematic. Although this scenario generated a debate regarding the logic of their decision to continue competing [7], this form of value-based description of concussion decision-making opens the doors for the opposite decision (i.e., removal from play) to be construed negatively (e.g., using descriptors such as ‘mouselike’ or ‘cowardly’). This is especially true given that decisionmaking processes surrounding injury disclosure and return to play are complex and multifactorial. Symptom-reporting remains a cornerstone of current concussion evaluation practice standards, however studies have demonstrated that athletes are not always consistent in disclosing potential concussive injuries [8]. The role that masculinity plays in association with concussion reporting has also been explored; Anderson and Kian [9] have suggested that there is a historical underpinning of masculinity to concussion reporting with regard to football in the USA, and similar cultural underpinnings are discussed by Hokowhitu toward Maori rugby Educating the masses: suggestions for improving online concussion information via the mainstream media “...the medical community should not attempt to shackle the journalistic world; rather they should work symbiotically with journalists, to allow them to create more medically accurate content for their readers.”