One “peek behind the curtain” of how news releases can sometimes emanate from academic medical centers – or their researchers – was provided by our managing editor Kevin Lomangino’s piece this week, “NanoKnife fight at the University of Louisville: Why a disputed news release reflects important truths about health care news.”
Another “peek behind the curtain” was published today by Kirk Englehardt, Director of Research Communication at the Georgia Institute of Technology, on his SciLogs blog. His piece was entitled, “University Communication & Trust in Science: A Peek Behind the Curtain.”
It reflected on how “the job of a university communicator has changed a lot in the past 10 years,” as Englehardt said at a recent National Academy of Sciences workshop, “Does the Public Trust Science?” – all explained in his post.
It’s a good article, which includes a video of the panel he was involved in at the NAS workshop (below) and a list of links to related resources.
Just last month, Englehardt wrote about our project’s introduction and publication of systematic reviews of health care news releases, including many by universities, in his post, “Meet the (Research) Press Release Police.”
The continued, open discussion of these important issues is healthy and welcome.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Fascinating case study in medical journalism... https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1547278045781819395
.@garyschwitzer nails it, again.
It doesn't have to be this way.
This: https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1547278045781819395
Someone please fund Health News Review again. Goodness knows we need a health news watchdog more than ever. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1547278045781819395
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