One of the worst stories by a major news organization on a health care topic was turned in by CBS’ 60 Minutes last Sunday with a piece it entitled on its website, “The Kanzius Machine: A Cancer Cure?”
The story was reviewed on HealthNewsReview.org and given one of the lowest ratings possible. The review summary stated, in part:
If the report were to be done and broadcast on 60 Minutes, it would have benefited considerably from additional context provided by other credible researchers. Did CBS look for and fail to find anyone skeptical of this technique? None was interviewed.
The story has elements that make it appealing as an act of infotainment: a lone-wolf outsider who can cure cancer with pie pans and hot dogs, a man motivated by his desire to help “hollow-eyed kids” with cancer, and hopeful researchers with impressive institutional affiliations, including a Nobel laureate said to have turned from skeptic to believer by the time he died from cancer.
But good stories don’t always make good journalism. This is such a case.
The segment is likely to raise hopes, clearly prematurely if not falsely, of millions of people affected by cancer, or even cancer risk. This is the opposite of public service.
The most disturbing aspect of the segment was its one-sidedness, its lack of context and independent perspective. And given that these segments run about 15 minutes, CBS can’t hide behind the excuse that this is TV and we don’t have enough airtime to go into great depth.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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.
Dr. Fred Klug
April 17, 2008 at 8:13 amI agree the piece was one-sided, but it should not be viewed as a magic bullet and the final word on curing cancer. It readily noted that additional study is needed.
On the other side of the coin, who can trust so-called credible research when drug companies write studies for experts to lend there name and reputation (cf. NY Times “Merck Wrote Drug Studies for Doctors”)? I for one take anything Big Pharm says with a large grain of salt, although that’s giving salt a bad name.
Glenn.Isaac
April 18, 2008 at 1:13 pmSupport the research! If it pans out, it’ll be big. If it doesn’t pan out, it’ll lead to something else that’ll be big. Either way, I think its good to follow every intelligent lead we can for something so revolutionary.
The Publisher
April 18, 2008 at 1:21 pmNot sure if Glenn Isaac was posting a shout out to everyone or whether he was delivering a message to me as Publisher.
If the former, go for it.
If the latter, please understand that I neither “support” nor “oppose” the research. In my heart, I hope it pans out. But this blog comments on journalism, which is all I did in my original post. And it is NOT the job of journalism to support research. It is the job of journalism to investigate, to question, to be a healthy skeptic and to publish or broadcast a balanced final product. This was not done in the case of the 60 Minutes piece.
Gary Seagraffe
April 28, 2008 at 5:34 pmSchwitz, I think 60 minutes did a great job. Obviously you know nothing about science or else your comments wouldn’t have been so terse. I make silver and gold nanoparticles. I know what they can do and cancer is just a tip of the iceberg.
It’s too bad that skeptics like you exist. We would forever be spinning our wheels in a mire of doubt as you have obviously come from the public education system.
The Publisher
April 28, 2008 at 9:13 pmGary Seagraffe,
Normally I won’t post ad hominem attacks such as the one you sent. And I probably won’t post a personal attack like yours again.
But I’m going to post yours because I want to point how wrong you are.
1. I know more science than you might want to give me credit for. And so do the two-dozen-plus scientists and academic researchers who help do the reviews of such stories on HealthNewsReview.org. So that’s error #1.
2. You clearly did not read what this blog and what HealthNewsReview.org are about. As I already wrote in a previous comment, “Please understand that I neither “support” nor “oppose” the research. In my heart, I hope it pans out. But this blog comments on journalism, which is all I did in my original post. And it is NOT the job of journalism to support research. It is the job of journalism to investigate, to question, to be a healthy skeptic and to publish or broadcast a balanced final product. This was not done in the case of the 60 Minutes piece.” So that’s error #2 – not reading what we’re all about and where our expertise resides.
I don’t question your knowledge of silver and gold nanoparticles.
Please exercise a little respect for one who has worked in and tried to improve health, medical and science journalism for 35 years – and for the team of experts that conduct story reviews on HealthNewsReview.org.
The Publisher
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