Of the first 710 stories reviewed on HealthNewsReview.org, only 88 – or 12% have received our top five-star score.
But in one recent 8-day span, a record of four stories were given a five-star review by three independent reviewers – using the same ten standardized criteria we apply to all stories.
Here are those four:
• An Associated Press story, “Fewer clogged arteries need heart stents, study finds; blood-flow test can show which ones do.”
• A Cleveland Plain Dealer story, “Early Cesareans put babies at risk, study finds.”
We said: “Good job describing the current study and quantifying the results and quoting multiple experts who provide different perspectives. Valuable information for readers – and in only about 500 words.”
• An Associated Press story, “Alzheimer’s drugs double death risk in elderly.”
We said: “In fewer than 450 words, this story gives good details on study methods, comments from two independent experts, and context about previous research and current treatment. Nice job.”
• A Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story, “Deep in brain, shocks help Parkinson’s symptoms.”
We said: “Solid job balancing positive study findings with negative ones, providing opportunity for a skeptic to air concerns. Good to see a newspaper devote more than 1,000 words to a story these days!”
Is HealthNewsReview.org making a difference? Is it helping journalists do a better job?
We can’t be sure of the impact we’ve had, but a recent analysis of many of the first stories we reviewed back in the Spring of 2006 compared with some of the most recent stories we reviewed in the Winter of 2008 suggests that the quality of health journalism is improving – despite all of the difficult economic times in newsrooms across the country.
More on this data in weeks to come.
Meantime, congratulations to those working so hard to maintain and improve the quality of health care news coverage in this country.
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