Responsible obesity reporting: avoiding stigma, misinformation and false drug vs lifestyle narratives
IN journalism and on social media, health coverage is increasingly shaped by headlines crafted for clicks rather than clarity.
A common example is framing anti-obesity medication as a rival to exercise or willpower. This false choice suggests that people must choose between medication and lifestyle change, which does not reflect scientific evidence or clinical practice.
In reality, anti-obesity medications are prescribed as part of a broader, multidisciplinary management plan that includes dietary changes, physical activity, behavioural support and ongoing clinical follow-up. This integrated approach is more effective and sustainable than any single action alone.
Obesity is not a matter of lifestyle choices. Major international bodies describe it as a chronic, relapsing disease influenced by complex biology, environment, economics, stress and social determinants.
Media coverage that reduces the condition to simple moral narratives fuels misunderstanding and stigma.
Despite growing scientific understanding, news and social content still often use dehumanising language, pejorative imagery and individual-blame frames that harm real people.
Research shows that weight stigma, including negative portrayals in the media, is associated with serious psychological and physical harms, and does not motivate healthier behaviour.
Furthermore, this illustrates how misinformation is defined: the unintentional use of factual information taken out of context.
While misinformation has long been central to highly polarised issues, such as vaccine hesitancy and the debate between natural and modern medicine, it can also turn well-intentioned journalists into agents of chaos.
Imagine readers interpreting an article to mean that obesity medication is a shortcut to a healthier life. When they find such treatments unaffordable, they may become vulnerable to unsolicited or predatory products.
This kind of unintentional misinformation is only the tip of the iceberg, opening the door to far greater risks and potential harm.
High-quality guidance already exists to help journalists and communicators move beyond outdated and harmful narratives when reporting on obesity.
Guidelines developed by multiple health and professional organisations, such as the Guidelines for Media Portrayals of Individuals Affected by Obesity and the European Association for the Study of Obesity’s language guide provide clear, practical direction.
Key recommendations for journalists are highlighted below. Together, these recommendations encourage reporting that is accurate, ethical and less likely to perpetuate bias or misinformation.
Use person-first, respectful language: For example, “people living with obesity” rather than labels that define individuals by body size.
Avoid stereotypes and stigmatising imagery: Select photos and visuals that do not reinforce bias or shame.
Do not overemphasise body weight: Do not overemphasise body weight when it is not central to the story or the evidence.
Frame obesity as a medical condition: Frame obesity as a medical condition, not a moral failing or personal shortcoming.
Ensure balanced, evidence-based reporting: Ensure reporting is balanced and evidence-based, reflecting current scientific consensus rather than sensational claims.
Acknowledge the complexity of causes, solutions: Include biological, social, environmental and psychological factors.
Avoid false dichotomies: Do not frame treatment as a choice between medication or lifestyle change.
Avoid simplistic cause-and-effect narratives: Never imply a direct link between body size, personal effort or individual worth.
Journalists and social media creators share responsibility in this area. Trusted sources – such as association podcasts, press materials from professional obesity organisations and official clinical guideline documents – provide reliable context that helps anchor reporting in evidence rather than stereotype.
Turning to these sources helps avoid unintentional harm. Headlines like “drug vs gym” may generate short-term attention but they can mislead the public. They imply that exercise and healthy behaviour are optional if you can afford medication and conversely that medication is a lazy substitute – neither narrative reflects clinical reality.
Treatment decisions are personal and medical, shaped by individual goals, preferences and risk profiles, and made in partnership with healthcare professionals.
Obesity also requires multidisciplinary management. Clinicians, including family medicine specialists, dietitians, behavioural specialists, physical therapists and mental health professionals, often work together with patients to support sustainable change. This teamwork is what evidence suggests yields the best outcomes.
Reporting that recognises these nuances will help the public understand how care actually works.
If journalism aims to inform rather than attract eyeballs, it should adopt standards that reduce weight stigma rather than amplify it. That means prioritising accuracy, context and compassion.
It also means using person-first language and portraying people affected by obesity with dignity. It means recognising that medication and lifestyle are tools that work together, not competitors.
The media does not reflect public understanding; it shapes it. Responsible reporting can help dismantle harmful assumptions, support better health conversations and ultimately serve the public interest.
Dr Jazlan Jamaluddin is a senior lecturer and Family Medicine specialist at the Department of Primary Care Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University Malaya. Dr Megat Mohamad Amirul Amzar Megat Hashim is a Family Medicine specialist at the Department of Primary Care Medicine, Universiti Malaya Medical Centre and the vice-president of Medical Mythbusters Malaysia. Both are also members of the podcast subcommittee of the Malaysian Family Medicine Specialists Association. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
