J Am Dent Assoc. 2018 Apr;149(4):273-280.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.10.016. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
Despite supporting scientific evidence, community water fluoridation (CWF) often fails in public referenda. To understand why, the authors quantitatively analyzed text from news media coverage of CWF referenda.
The authors analyzed text from 234 articles covering 11 CWF referenda conducted in 3 US cities from 1956 through 2013. The authors used cluster analysis to identify each article's core rhetoric and classified it according to sentiment and tone. The authors used multilevel count regression models to measure the use of positive and negative words regarding CWF.
Media coverage more closely resembled core rhetoric used by fluoridation opponents than the rhetoric used by fluoridation proponents. Despite the scientific evidence, the media reports were balanced in tone and sentiment for and against CWF. However, in articles emphasizing children, greater negative sentiment was associated with CWF rejection.
Media coverage depicted an artificial balance of evidence and tone in favor of and against CWF. The focus on children was associated with more negative tone in cities where voters rejected CWF.
When speaking to the media, advocates for CWF should emphasize benefits for children and use positive terms about dental health rather than negative terms about dental disease.
尽管有科学证据支持，但社区水氟化（CWF）在公众投票中经常失败。为了了解其中的原因，作者对 CWF 投票的新闻媒体报道的文本进行了定量分析。
作者分析了 1956 年至 2013 年间在美国三个城市进行的 11 次 CWF 投票的 234 篇文章中的文本。作者使用聚类分析来确定每篇文章的核心修辞，并根据情感和语气对其进行分类。作者使用多级计数回归模型来衡量有关 CWF 的积极和消极词汇的使用。
媒体报道更接近氟化反对者的核心修辞，而不是氟化支持者的核心修辞。尽管有科学证据，但媒体报道在 CWF 的支持和反对方面在语气和情感上保持平衡。然而，在强调儿童的文章中，CWF 被拒绝与更大的负面情绪有关。
媒体报道描绘了 CWF 的证据和语气的人为平衡，赞成和反对。在拒绝 CWF 的城市中，对儿童的关注与更负面的语气有关。
在与媒体交流时，CWF 的支持者应强调对儿童的益处，并使用积极的术语来描述口腔健康，而不是使用负面的术语来描述口腔疾病。
