OK, so many news stories today are reporting the new statistics suggesting (with lots of head-scratching and remaining doubts by some observers) that the U.S. had the biggest single-year decline in deaths since 1938.
If true, who or what gets the credit?
The Star Tribune, in its first sentence,says it’s “a powerful testament to medical advances.” It quotes a state health department official attributing it to “technology” and drugs.
Whoa! Where is any discussion of prevention, of lifestyle changes, of a “powerful testament to public health”?
This journalism-juiced love affair with high tech and emphasis on medicine with minimal or no mention of public health is troubling, sensational, and short-sighted. We need to remember: the U.S. spends more on health care than any other country and has outcomes worse than many other countries. People in countries that spend less on technology and drugs live longer than Americans.
Not only do these statistics demand more scrutiny, as many have already stated, but so do the possible explanations for any possible decline in the death rate. Journalists, don’t be cheerleaders for high-tech and drugs if you don’t have the evidence to back that up.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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