February 17, 2007
More NBC News cheerleading rather than reporting health news
Last week it was NBC’s hype of a drug for restless leg syndrome.
This week it was NBC using some of its airtime to promote a new “laser hair comb” for baldness. You figure a network newscast has about 22 minutes for real news. It chose to give a chunk of that time to this. The video can be seen on the MSNBC site.
[2017 Update: The video is no longer available but the transcript can be found HERE ]
What’s going on with the NBC newscast? Is it cheerleading-in-TV news month? Perhaps, given that we’re in the midst of a ratings-sweeps period.
In our systematic review, we wrote: “There is an underlying tone of disease-mongering whenever a national TV network uses some of its precious 22 minutes of airtime to promote an expensive new product to “treat” – or as the story says at one point, “cure” – baldness – a condition that is a normal part of aging for many men.
The story didn’t quantify benefits. People thinking of paying $550 for such a device should be given some estimate of how well it works.
But the bigger failing of the story was that it missed an opportunity to point out how such devices are approved by the FDA. Such new devices must only pass a test of “substantial equivalence” to products already on the market. The FDA lists 10 such products. So not only did the story fail to tell how well the device works, it failed to put the new idea into the context of existing alternatives.
No sources were cited.
Anchor Brian Williams’ comment – “..when you use the expression “potential cure for baldness” in this country, you’re going to be a multimillionaire overnight…” – is more cheerleading than reporting. If this story had to be reported as one of the few stories of the day in a network newscast, it should have offered more evidence and context than boosterism.”
One wonders what the 47-million Americans without health insurance would think if they saw a story like this on the network news.
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