Balanced journalism amplifies minority positions: A case study of the newspaper coverage of a fluoridation plebiscite

Abstract

Background Public opinion surveys usually report majority support for fluoridation in North America. Yet many local plebiscites produce opposite results. One possible reason is the nature of local media coverage. Analysis This article reports on a content analysis of news coverage and letters to the editor about a fluoridation plebiscite in Waterloo, Ontario. Qualitative research suggested that the groups opposed to fluoridation were more motivated and better organized than those in support. The net effect was news coverage more neutral toward fluoridation than supportive or critical, predominantly framed in terms of risks rather than benefits. Conclusion and implications The findings here emphasize the reactive nature of contemporary journalism. In local fluoridation plebiscites, champions are required to produce news coverage that better conveys the benefits to the public.