HealthNewsReview.org is an attempt to help improve the accuracy, balance and completeness of news stories that make claims about new ideas in health care. It is not intended to belittle the hard work of well-intentioned journalists. I covered health and medical news on a daily basis for 15 years and I know about deadline pressures. I know you don’t always have the time and space you need. I know that you don’t call all the shots – that editors or producers or news directors play a significant role in what is finally reported.
Our ratings criteria are clear and fair. And, yes, they’re tough. Journalists may ask, "How can you expect us to cover all of these in each story?" But good health care journalists find a way to fit this information into their stories (see a five-star example on this site). One thing is inarguable: consumers need this information in order to make good health care decisions. We set the bar high. Consumers deserve nothing less.
We also want to thank the Media Doctor websites in Australia and Canada – our inspiration for this site.
A top Canadian health care journalist, Andre Picard of The Globe and Mail of Toronto, has been reviewed by the Media Doctor Canada project. In a recent e-mail to me, Picard wrote: "I actually like having my stories reviewed because we get so little useful feedback." Once he received a weaker two-star grade for a vaccine story. "When I looked back at the two star effort I thought: ‘Yes, there’s some basic info missing.’ When I wrote another vaccine story recently, I was more careful and thorough. Some of my colleagues complain that the criteria are unfair, that they don’t have room to get everything in every story. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for that – and most of my stories are in the 400-800 word range."
We hope that U.S. journalists find our reviews helpful and accept the constructive criticism. This project is intended to support excellence in health and medical journalism. But it’s also intended to help news consumers and health care consumers get the information they need to make decisions.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The world is watching US.
Since Sep 2018, at least 7 children have died in US custody, including 3 from influenza-related complications.
"Outbreaks & deaths in detention centers point to the need for influenza immunization in these facilities"
And more
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1916894#.XjJFqg9wXys.twitter
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
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