Suddenly lung cancer is a hot topic in newsrooms. Peter Jenning dies one day. The next day Christopher Reeve’s widow announces she has lung cancer. So it is understandable that some well-intentioned “disease awareness” efforts would come forward.
But journalists should employ facts and full disclosure when giving attention to such disease awareness campaigns. (The “Selling Sickness” book by Moynihan and Cassels gives many reasons why.)
CNN gave several minutes of airtime yesterday to a founder of the group, Women Against Lung Cancer. The network never revealed that the group receives financial support from the drug industry — from makers of lung cancer drugs. But CNN also allowed the guest to talk about “studies looking at special spiral CAT scans of the chest so that we can pick up tiny nodules, hopefully before they have a chance to get into the bloodstream and spread.” What neither the guest nor CNN disclosed is that many scientists don’t think there is proof that such scans prevent premature death. And many see risks in such screening, even the possibility that they do more harm than good when scans lead to unnecessary followup testing that carries its own risk. That’s why they’re doing the studies. It’s not a slam dunk that benefits will outweigh risks.
Those would have been balanced facts to present. Not just the promise of early diagnosis discussed during the emotional reaction to two celebrities’ diagnoses.
When you hear about “disease awareness” campaigns, always look for facts in context and full disclosure.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Why fact-checking is not enough to prevent the spread of misleading health care news...@HealthNewsRevu https://t.co/fzC2JbDYGV
Simply fact-checking an article "fails to capture questions of nuance and context that arise – or should arise – whenever evaluating medical evidence." https://t.co/HrYkGj12q1
We wrote only about efforts that label themselves as “fact-checking” projects. You’ll see that if you read the piece.
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