I have not written about the surprise December 26 sale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune to Avista Capital Partners. Clearly it was another sign of tough economic times in the newspaper industry.
Today’s health section of the paper may be another sign of a paper limping through its routine. It’s a weekly health section and there isn’t one locally-produced piece in the section. Contributions come from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. I’m not tying this anecdote to the new ownership; in fact, I’ve observed such a trend in this section before. When the paper announced its new redesign more than a year ago, the window-dressing nature of this weekly health section was obvious. No new resources or staffing were devoted to the coverage of health, medicine, or science. Just a weekly section, often filled with contributions from other sources.
Oh, well, at least the Star Tribune’s editorial page today addressed local needs. The editorial states: “At a Capitol news conference last week, Gov. Tim Pawlenty had finished outlining his much-awaited plan to expand health insurance coverage when a reporter asked how many Minnesotans would gain coverage under its provisions. An aide consulted some notes and replied: 23,000 people, including 13,000 children.
That number is too low. It’s a small fraction of Minnesota’s 70,000 uninsured children, and less than one-tenth of its uninsured adults. In fact, it could be less than the number of people who lost coverage from state budget cuts in 2003. It shows a disappointing lack of leadership in a state that prides itself as a leader in health care — and that now measures itself against states where Republican governors have embraced universal coverage.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
mpls1934
January 24, 2007 at 4:14 pmThanks for the follow up comment. I am a behavioral health clinician working in managed healthcare in the Twin Cities and I enjoy reading your blog. I feel fortunate to live in a community with a commitment to healthcare (by history anyway); to see the Strib drift away from covering impt state and local health topics is unfortunate. Plus, my husband’s brother is the pop music writer at the Strib, and my daughter is a junior at the Univ of IA in print journalism. I grew up with a strong tradition of reading the local paper (gosh, I remember feeling lost when the pm paper went away) and our household continues to read the paper daily (OK, my 17 y.o. focuses on the sports section). And, hey, I like getting my news online too. But I don’t like to see changes in what’s happening with print journalism…….
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