In a little more than a week, 3 health segments on ABC’s Good Morning America received pretty bad reviews from health care and journalism observers on HealthNewsReview.org. All 3 stories are currently on the site’s home page.
The story, “Cutting Edge Nail Cure” got one of our rare, lowest, zero-star scores:
The advantages were unsubstantiated, the harms unstated and the effectiveness exaggerated. Network TV promoting an off-label use. Disease mongering at its worst. A new low. Stay tuned for lower.
The segment, “DNA tests replace Pap smear?” made a decent effort on an important topic, but, in the end, our reviewers felt:
This story gave lip service to an important new study, but fell far short on details. Didn’t quantify benefits or costs or discuss the possibly limited impact in developed countries.
And the segment, “New treatments for America’s #1 killer,” deserved this review:
Story on coronary calcium test fails to discuss evidence, cost, or problems with false positive tests. But it hypes the test and disease mongers – telling us it’s a wakeup call we all need. Not so.
Instead of starting your day with this kind of health news, you’d be better off going for a walk before work.
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