Much of the coverage of the death of Anna Nicole Smith represented another low point in journalism.
CNN, which has billed itself as âthe worldâs most important network,â? asked its senior medical correspondent, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, to comment on the death.
Wolf Blitzer introduced Gupta, saying, âTalk a little bit about what we know. A lot we don’t know, Sanjay, about the cause of her death.â?
Gupta led off saying, âThere’s a lot we don’t know as well.â?
Talk about a reason to stay tuned! But if you stayed tuned, you heard Gupta jumble together conjecture about âthe heart as being the most likely culpritâ? â“ followed by âWhy she would have heart problems? Not exactly sure.â?
He continued: âAlso lung problems. Could there have been some sort of a clot?… Could it have been some sort of medication problem?â?
Blitzer and Gupta then speculated about the flu, about her weight problem, about her addiction to painkillers, about a diet plan called Trimspa, about ephedra â“ much of it followed up with the reminder, âWhether that had anything to do with this, we don’t know as well.â?
So there you have it: virtual autopsy from long distance via speculation, rumors, and no direct knowledge of anything.
I am disappointed that Vioxx, Viagra, and the Virus of the West Nile were never mentioned.
As Blitzer introduced CNN anchor Jack Cafferty for another segment, Cafferty said: âIs Anna Nicole Smith still dead, Wolf?â?
BLITZER: âYes, we’re going to — updating our viewers coming up shortly on…â?
CAFFERTY: âI can’t wait for that.â?
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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