Birth Stories in British Newspapers: Why Midwives Must Speak up

Abstract

A free press is held to be a benchmark of healthy society—but this chapter explores how British newspapers may contribute to adverse birth outcomes. Social theory about news-making suggests that the experience of having a baby has emotive human interest, and editors tend to favour those which are unusual. Hence the deliveries which make it into print are out-of-the-ordinary, often frightening and likely to distort readers’ risk perceptions. Such a dynamic may be a factor in increased rates of caesarean section, which has been associated with fearful future mothers, medicalised care and interventionist policymakers. This prompts a call for midwives to engage with journalists in order to represent vaginal birth as a normal bodily function which has benefits for both mother and baby. Giving interviews is acknowledged to be an intimidating prospect for most clinicians; hence high-quality media training is essential. Maclean concludes by giving insights about how a newsroom works, and suggests that if editors are given sufficiently interesting material, they may find space for more normal birth stories. There is no expectation for newspapers to stop holding clinicians to account or to ‘change’ the media. Rather, advocates of normal birth might better understand how news-making works, so as to help meet the aforementioned criteria for a good story. Maclean concedes that even as a former journalist, it is stressful being a midwife who grants media requests. But her experience of such exposure suggests this is an opportunity not to be wasted.