To the Editor: Sweet and Simons are right to raise concerns about the quality and reliability of the health information available on the internet in this new digital age.1 Similar to the “old media” paradigm, the driving pressure is to maximise readership, thereby maximising advertising revenue. The task of providing content of sufficient volume and quality to meet the needs of readers permanently connected to the internet appears overwhelming.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Sweet MA, Simons M. As mass media evolves into “masses of media”, what are the implications for our health [editorial]? Med J Aust 2009; 191: 618-619. <MJA full text>
- 2. Why can’t we have a rational discussion about the merits of pandemic flu vaccination? Croakey 2009; 31 Aug. http://blogs.crikey.com.au/croakey/2009/08/31/why-cant-we-have-a-rational-discussion-about-the-merits-of-pandemic-flu-vaccination/ (accessed Feb 2010).
- 3. Wooldridge M. Influenza vaccination: the case for. Crikey 2009; 29 Sep. http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/09/29/influenza-vaccination-the-case-for/ (accessed Feb 2010).
- 4. Sweet M. Influenza vaccination. Crikey 2009; 1 Oct. http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/10/01/comments-corrections-clarifications-and-cckups-92/ (accessed Feb 2010).
- 5. Harvey J. Federal government stealth marketing wholly inappropriate. Australian Vaccination Network [Yahoo group; registration required] 2009; 2 Oct. (Message 40159.) http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AVN/message/40159 (accessed Feb 2010).
I am a co-investigator on the CSL-funded paediatric H1N1 vaccine trial.