The Oklahoman is another newspaper that must love new, expensive, unproven medical technologies.
The story, “Tulsa company hopes device can ease cancer screenings,” may just as well have been headlined, “Tulsa company can’t write a better promotional news release than this.”
It’s a local business story, cheerleading for local business, and to hell with the evidence. And for that matter, the story thumbs its nose at women who need better information than this about breast cancer screening.
Former Washington Post health section editor Craig Stoltz wrote this summary on HealthNewsReview.org:
“This story on a new ultrasound imaging device stands out from other zero-star stories we’ve reviewed. This piece doesn’t merely fail to be accurate, balanced and complete. It fails to even try.
* It draws on only one source, a company executive whose job it is to sell machines
* It doesn’t present any data to justify the source’s claims of efficacy and superiority
* It doesn’t provide any context about similar devices and other diagnostic techniques
* By implying the device can detect cancers mammograms cannot, it could provoke unjustified fear
* It fails to distinguish between screening and diagnosisLooking over the story, it’s not clear the reporter even asked a question. It is not mean or hyperbolic to say that most press releases are more informative.”
Consider the impact on consumers of this kind of daily drumbeat of such stories by news organizations all across the country while you listen to all of the mounting opposition to health care reform proposals in Washington. (Today I’ve blogged about just two – albeit egregious – examples in South Dakota and Oklahoma.)
Until we educate health care consumers better than this, health care reform is going to be a really tough sell.
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.
Rafael Marquez
June 19, 2009 at 7:54 amNot only is the article in The Oklahoman everything that you say it is, it’s also poorly written. Did you notice how they repeat the same point about mammograms not being conclusive at the end of the story? It seems like Jupiterwala was editing his press release and forgot to erase that extra sentence.
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