One day after we published a terrific guest column on how a BMJ news release sensationalized an observational study, with the headline “It’s official: chocolate linked to heart health,” NBC News kept dripping the chocolate hype.
The BMJ news release spawned countless news stories. Just look at what a Google search turns up.
On Twitter yesterday, BMJ deputy editor Trish Groves, seemingly defensive about guest blogger Kevin Lomangino’s post, wrote:
“Hope you spotted that the press did report the caveats”
Clearly, not all did. Many did not.
Let the NBC TV network evening newscast stand as the latest, and probably best example of how editor Groves’ comment misses the point.
I propose that there is no way that NBC News would have reported that story if the BMJ hadn’t trumpeted it with that news release headline.
[Editor’s note: The NBC News video is no longer available.]
Here’s what NBC anchor Brian Williams said on the air in his tease at the commercial break prior to the story running:
“The science that just might justify an American addiction.”
And the story lead-in went out of its way to justify why this was so important:
“Bona fide science. A real study of a lot of people.”
NBC didn’t assign health/medicine/science specialists Robert Bazell or Nancy Snyderman to this story, but, rather, a general assignment reporter, who, along with production help, trotted out tired old Forrest Gump clips (“Life is like a box of chocolates; you never know what you’re gonna get.”) along with other ways to embellish the story.
Well, run, Forrest, run, because we DO know what we’re gonna get most nights in network TV news health stories.
The NBC piece definitely stated:
“There are benefits… may decrease heart disease by as much as 37 percent.”
The piece ended by quoting Mark Twain:
“The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don’t want, drink what you don’t like, and do what you’d rather not.”
We will end by citing another Mark Twain quote – just substitute “network TV news” for “newspaper” – imagine if Twain had lived to see today’s TV news:
“If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”
Back in 2008, the editors of the journal PLoS Medicine wrote:
“Schwitzer’s alarming report card of the trouble with medical news stories is thus a wake-up call for all of us involved in disseminating health research–researchers, academic institutions, journal editors, reporters, and media organizations–to work collaboratively to improve the standards of health reporting.”
In this case, the BMJ, NBC News, and many other news organizations missed the wakeup call – or chose to ignore it.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Questions to ask about new Alzheimer’s drug research by @KatKStone incl:
-does study focus on patient outcomes or surrogate markers?
-does study rely on selective subgroups? (yield more favourable outcomes)
-who were the patients? https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2017/08/6-questions-to-ask-when-writing-and-reading-about-new-alzheimers-research/#.YRw5xNVXths.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like