[Media and homeopathy : Reporting between proximity to lobbyism and distance from science]

Media coverage of homeopathy frequently appears outside the evidence-based scientific context compared to other medical topics, even though it is good and accepted journalistic practice to report on medicine and health in an evidence-based way.Starting from the previous lack of systematic analyses or empirical data on homeopathy in the media, the authors present a narrative approach to the topic based on their years of observation of the media landscape from the perspective of science-based homeopathy criticism. As an explanatory hypothesis for the many media contributions on homeopathy that are far from evidence, the authors consider that the reception of the method is shaped in different ways by cognitive patterns and subjectivistic tendencies, the common basis of which is the widespread and widely unquestioned "public reputation" of the method as a "gentle, side-effect-free, and effective alternative to conventional medicine." This leads to a reception of the homeopathic topic on variously motivated metalevels more or less beyond scientific evidence.A change towards fact-oriented reporting can be observed. However, metalevels far removed from science continue to be served by the media landscape, although there is a broad scientific consensus that homeopathy cannot prove any specific medicinal effect. The present article outlines this phenomenon on the basis of typifying case groups. The authors see the given situation as deficient. To remedy the situation, they consider a clear positioning of politics, science, and healthcare on homeopathy appropriate, in addition to intensifying educational campaigns.