As my research has shown, whenever ratings-sweeps periods roll around, television news departments miraculously find time to cure the problem of not having enough time to devote to health news.
In my market, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, the May sweeps period has been filled with tears, joy and new hope surrounding dramatic breakthroughs and promising developments for victims of illness. (There, I just polished off my “seven words you shouldn’t use in medical news??? in almost the same time as the normal TV anchor lead-in.)
This week on local TV, I saw:
The “countdown to separation??? for conjoined twins. And I saw it over and over and over on all local stations. All conjoined twins all the time. Like it’s never been done before. You’d never know there were 45-million uninsured in this country but you sure know a lot about these two kids.
A single-source story, “Doctor Has New Method To Break Up Kidney Stones,??? with no input from any independent source
“Minnesota Twins’ wives step up to fight cancer???
“States prepare for bird flu fears, pandemic??? – how health officials from California to New York were taking steps to allay any fears that might arise from the TV movie “Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America” – a local ABC affiliate story about the ABC network movie that was panned by critics. Nice cross-promotion, huh? Or, the local affiliate could have just refused to air the sappy production.
Another station posted on its website, “Bird Flu Preps,??? asking the tough questions for which we all want answers, such as: “But what happens if there’s no one to anchor the news? No one to operate the cameras? And no reporters in the field to tell us what’s going on????
To be fair, I saw only a portion of one story that reported: “An organ donation group that gives priority to members over others in need is causing medical ethicists to question its appropriateness.??? This is the kind of issue-oriented health news story that is lacking in many TV newscasts. So credit should be given to KSTP-TV for digging beneath the surface of news releases on breakthroughs and cures.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Major revisions + reversals of reporting about the efficacy of remdesivir and HCQ have compromised the public's trust in scientists and physicians. Complexity and caution are key to public #COVID19 communications @garyschwitzer https://ja.ma/3fzUW0M
SPH adjunct associate professor @garyschwitzer presented to @Georgetown University public health students on how #covid19 has been "the perfect storm of politics, PR, and polluted messages to the public."
Watch the recorded zoom presentation here: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/09/perfect-storm-of-politics-pr-polluted-messages-to-the-public/.
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