A collection of recent stories by mid-sized Midwestern newspapers are worthy of special attention. They all reported on issues of conflict of interest in health care and medical research.
A series of reports by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked tough questions about financial ties between drug companies and medical school physician faculty members.
* "Doctors Face Pressure To Disclose All Side Pay”
* "UW Psychiatrist Paid To Speak About Disputed Anti-Smoking Pill"
* "UW Researcher in Clinical Trial Consults for Medical Firm"
* "Drug Firms Wine, Dine and Pay Up for Doctors’ Speeches"
* "UW Doctors Speak for Drug Companies: Three Employees’ Disclosure Forms Offer Examples of Side Jobs"
An investigative piece by the Minneapolis Star Tribune found that “A professor who is leading the University of Minnesota Medical School’s effort to write tougher ethics rules was himself disciplined in 2004 for secretly steering a $501,000 research grant to his own company.”
These are tough issues for newspapers to dig into – especially in these difficult newsroom times. But it is vital that journalists help the public think about industry influence on health care as these newspapers did.
Another mid-sized paper, The Oregonian, published a terrific piece that discussed a “widespread problem in the health care system: the tendency to embrace new technology without waiting for proof that it’s better than older, cheaper, time-tested solutions.”
It is refreshing to see any journalist try to educate readers that, in US health care, more is not always better and newer is not always better.
At the other end of the spectrum is a series of dreadful pieces on network TV news.
• CBS Early Show, “Heart Score: New Treatment for Heart Failure.” Our summary:
“The plural of anecdote is not data. Viewers were told one very positive patient story, but nothing about whether that’s a representative outcome. No independent sources. Nothing on harms or costs.”
• CBS Early Show, “Breakthrough for MS.” Our summary:
“Strength: it emphasized this was a small, early study. But it focused exclusively on one patient with an excellent outcome, giving no broader data from the study. No independent sources were quoted.”
• CBS 60 Minutes, “Fountain of Youth in a Wine Rx?” Our summary:
“The story approach was very similar to 60 Minutes’ coverage of what they called the "Kanzius Cancer Cure" months ago. Cheerleading. Lacking evidence. Failure to interview independent sources.”
• NBC Today Show, “Lose Weight While You Sleep.” Our summary:
“NBC gave 5.5 minutes of free publicity to Glamour magazine’s pseudo-scientific experiment, then made bold, baseless projections that women would "probably add about 7 years to their life". Amazing.”
• NBC Today Show, “Today’s Matters of the Heart: Dr. Nancy’s Personal Wake-up Call.” Our summary:
“A 6-minute segment almost completely devoid of evidence and data, riding the single personal anecdote of the network’s medical editor. Disease-mongering. Incomplete story on heart CT scans.”
There are journalists – like those we profiled above in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Oregon, who are working hard to educate readers on important health care issues. But are their efforts being drowned out by the impact of network TV segments like those above – reaching millions with incomplete, non-evidence-based, single source stories that may drive up unrealistic expectations in the worried well?
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