Objectives Given that the news media shape our understanding of health issues, a study was undertaken to examine the use by the US media of the expression ‘freak accident’ in relation to injury events. This analysis is intended to contribute to the ongoing consideration of lay conceptualisation of injuries as ‘accidents’.
Methods LexisNexis Academic was used to search three purposively selected US news sources (Associated Press, New York Times and Philadelphia Inquirer) for the expression ‘freak accident’ over 5 years (2005–9). Textual analysis included both structured and open coding. Coding included measures for who used the expression within the story, the nature of the injury event and the injured person(s) being reported upon, incorporation of prevention information within the story and finally a phenomenological consideration of the uses and meanings of the expression within the story context.
Results The search yielded a dataset of 250 human injury stories incorporating the term ‘freak accident’. Injuries sustained by professional athletes dominated coverage (61%). Fewer than 10% of stories provided a clear and explicit injury prevention message. Stories in which journalists employed the expression ‘freak accident’ were less likely to include prevention information than stories in which the expression was used by people quoted in the story.
Conclusions Journalists who frame injury events as freak accidents may be an appropriate focus for advocacy efforts. Effective prevention messages should be developed and disseminated to accompany injury reporting in order to educate and protect the public.
- mass media
- qualitative research
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This paper was supported by the cooperative agreement number SR49CE001507 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.