Over on HealthNewsReview.org, August has been a spotty month for health news quality. 
The good news: five stories have been given the site’s top five-star score. That’s a record for one month. They include stories by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press (two). All can be found here.
Then there was the crud:
a one-star story by the Wall Street Journal on a depression drug being tested for chronic pain. At only 189 words, it was still wasted space. It apparently stole a quote from a news release without attribution.
a one-star story by the CBS Early Show on an “artificial pancreas.” CBS called it a “medical miracle.” The anchorman gushed, in interviewing a patient:
* “How life-changing was it for you when you tried this thing?”
* “Wow. Wow. How much would you love it if this thing actually came on the market?”
a zero-star story by the CBS Evening News on a form of 3-D optics to help surgeons. The HealthNewsReview.org summary on this one:
“CBS exaggerates benefits, fails to explain what’s really new, doesn’t mention costs and cites no evidence about whether the machine produces better outcomes or carries any additional risks.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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