February 2006 Archives

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that WTMJ-TV in Milwaukee dismissed its medical reporter Kimberly Kane last week. Kane had worked at the station for seven years. The station’s news director did not respond to the newspaper’s e-mails asking about the reporter’s status.

The TV reporter told the newspaper in an e-mail: "When the most recent administration took over leadership of our newsroom, it was made clear to me their commitment to health was different. I was told to take my stories in a different direction: more controversies, more excitement . . . "

She said some of these changes made her "uncomfortable."

No one on the outside can judge a personnel matter. But her statement that management was pushing her toward more controversies and more excitement certainly aligns with what most of us receive in local TV health news – an abyss for consumers who need fact more than flash, who need evidence-based reporting more than emotion, who need health policy news more than breathless breakthrough gee-whiz gushing.

Incidentally, the station in question, WTMJ, is where I began my journalism career 34 years ago. The newsroom then had a bunch of veteran newspeople. Many were much older than anyone you see on the air today. They were much more than pretty faces. They knew the city and they knew its people and politics and budgets. They knew what viewers cared about and they reported what they needed to know – not what some consultant told them people wanted to see. They knew B.S. when they heard it. And they never – NEVER – followed what was in the newspaper. They originated their own stories. Show me a TV station that matches that description today. And never would someone have been canned because he/she didn't generate enough controversy or excitement in the news. But that was a long time ago.

University of Minnesota researchers announced Sunday that they were able to reverse diabetes in monkeys by transplanting insulin-producing cells from pigs.

The Star Tribune's sub-head read, "A new study raises the potential for an endless supply of insulin-producing cells to cure the disease that affects 20 million Americans." Mind you, this work was done on a few monkeys. Yet the headline trumpets a potential impact on 20-million Americans. At least the first line of the story read, "They're not ready to try this with people yet. "

KMSP TV wrote "Scientists at the U of M are closing in on a cure."

WCCO TV wrote this was a "breakthrough that could lead to the end of injections for tens of thousands of diabetes patients."

KARE TV wrote "While many consider pigs a cure for hunger, they could also harbor the key to curing Type 1 diabetes."

The Pioneer Press headline read, "U finds pig cells can treat diabetes." Treat? Yeah, in monkeys. The story went on to say this development gives "renewed hope that a better treatment, or even a cure, may soon be available." Soon? The researcher says human trials are three years away. How would you define soon?

Read my "Seven Words You Shouldn't Use in Medical News.". Cure, breakthrough, and hope are all on the list. And I didn't create the list. Sick people provided the impetus. This important piece of diabetes research could have been told with a lot less sensationalism. The story didn't need it. Neither do sick people.

The Center for Science in the Public Interest offers a newsletter called “Integrity in Science Watch.�

You can subscribe by writing to: science@cspinet.org.

Last week’s newsletter had this item:

New York Times Fails To Disclose Researcher's Ties to Antidepressant Makers

A new study published this week in The New England Journal of Medicine showed an increased incidence of lung disease in children born from pregnant women taking antidepressants like Paxil, Prozac, Celexa and Zoloft. While the New York Times report quoted a Food and Drug Administration official calling the results "very worrisome," it countered with study co-author Christine Chambers of the University of California at San Diego, who downplayed the risks. "We don't know for certain that the drugs actually caused persistent pulmonary hypertension, and that if they did, the risk is still low, about one in a hundred," she said. The Times failed to report that Chambers and her co-authors have numerous ties to pharmaceutical firms, including Barr Laboratories, Par Pharmaceutical, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sandoz, and GlaxoSmithKline, all of which make at least one of the drugs in the test.

There’s a thoughtful news criticism piece on the CJR Daily website. It’s headlined, “A Heaping Serving of Baked Kolata, Hold the Caveats.�

It questions why the New York Times put on its front page Gina Kolata’s story on a study questioning the impact of low-fat diets on postmenopausal women. Meantime, the piece explains that the Wall Street Journal put the story “deep, deep, deep inside the paper. Specifically, under a one-column headline on page D5. And even though the Journal's article about the federal study was less than half as long as the Times' piece, it managed to bring to the topic twice the skepticism.�

The criticism concludes: “what a paper such as the Times chooses to include on its front page is at least as important as what it excludes. On this one, we recommend a little less Kolata in the diet, and a few more caveats.�

Veteran health journalists have not forgotten the Kolata page one hype of a “cancer cure� in 1998. For that background, see another Columbia Journalism Review piece. It provides one more piece for the archives of questionable editing at the Times (Judith Miller? Jayson Blair?).

About this Archive

This page is an archive of entries from February 2006 listed from newest to oldest.

December 2005 is the previous archive.

March 2006 is the next archive.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.