Posted by Gary Schwitzer in health care marketing, Strange stuff
Chocolate, seaweed, omega-3, antioxidants, laser toenail fungus treatments, enzyme deficiencies, snoring, anti-aging, cure for cancer, seasonal affective disorder, itching, vaginal dryness, miracle diets, zits, ta-tas, head lice, “uber” nutrients…..
Flashback to the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear?
No. These are just some of the things promoted in news releases saved by just this one little blogger in the course of a year. Some of the biggest names in American health care join in the barrage.
Yesterday, we wrote about what was missing in a Cleveland Clinic “News Tip” email message.
Yesterday a reader also brought to our attention the following Tweet from the Harvard School of Public Health.
While not technically a news release, that is, in essence, what such a Tweet is. But whatever you call it, it’s wrong. It links to a story about an observational study, which can’t establish cause and effect. So “appears to reduce” hedges but is still wrong. Following the link, the Harvard news piece says more definitively that women “reduced their risk for cancer.” Wrong, wrong, wrong. The words matter, as we remind readers and journalists with our primer on this topic. Using active verbs with causal language to describe the results of observational studies is inappropriate.
So that’s just one example each from the venerable Cleveland Clinic and Harvard School of Public Health.
Here are some of the rest of the health care news releases I saved over the course of 2011:
I’ll end this piece the way I ended last year’s year-ending post, “Year-end review of health care PR puffery sent to journalists.”
This is not all fun and games. In my 2009 report on “The State of Health Journalism in the US,” I wrote:
“The challenging nature of the news environment today threatens to make it more difficult for
health journalists to maintain the wall that once existed between the editorial and advertising sides of the business, and perhaps less able to see through or deflect the influence of public relations professionals. For journalism, and for the audience it serves, this may be the most troubling trend today. … The danger is that with the increasing constraints in many newsrooms, the PR folks may be winning more often — getting their messages through to news audiences in a less filtered or unfiltered way. They’re helping to provide content to fill the shrinking news hole — content that the shrinking news staff can’t provide. In an interview for this report, one East Coast newspaper reporter said that “My big fight was with the way PR people were basically able to steer news …The health team was relying more and more on public relations to provide the story, and sources for the story, and they had too much control over the story. When you let someone else who has an agenda — to make a hospital look as good as it can — [control the story], it gets in the way of finding that truth.”
And it’s not fun and games when we’ve found more than 100 stories in the past 5.5 years that have relied solely or largely on news releases in “reporting” on health care news.
The news about “world’s first multidisciplinary program designed solely to understand and treat itch” may sound funny to some, but it’s serious medical science. Link to Wash U St. Louis release: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/22023.aspx Chronic itch is a debilitating feature of certain types of cancer and liver and kidney disease as well as psoriasis and atopic dermatitis, and no laughing matter.
Our post did not in any way question the seriousness of the science. And we don’t see how we conveyed in any way that this was a “laughing matter” as you suggest. This post was about the bombardment of news releases sent to journalists who are trying to decide what is vital information for readers, viewers and listeners. If journalists were to write about every news release they receive about institutions’ new multi-disciplinary specialty centers, or about every “first”, or about every “only one-of-its-kind” announcement, there would be no time for enterprise journalism. While the tone of the post may have been light-hearted in places, we end with a very serious note about why this matters to the public.
The tone of your intro (“Flashback to the snake oil salesmen of yesteryear?” “..health care PR puffery…” ) and the content of the list indicate otherwise–most of the list items ARE funny, and clearly held up for ridicule. However, your point is taken about the influx of PR into journalism.
Disclaimer: I welcome comments but will delete those with any kind of product pitch, profanity, personal attacks or those from anyone who doesn’t list what appears to be an actual e-mail address. I will also end any thread of comments that are repetitive. Because I moderate comments, I can’t keep reacting to repeatedly inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it.
Gregory D. Pawelski posted on December 20, 2011 at 10:32 am
“a doctor who is “performing life-saving procedures that only a handful of doctors across the country are even capable of” – extracts tumors using a CO2 laser scalpel.”
A handful of those doctors are veterinarians. Spaying your five month old kitten for $85.80 more, it won’t hurt so much.