Last week I praised the CBS Evening News for a piece on overuse of angioplasty.
Tonight I must criticize them for junk journalism on the McAllen, TX story.
They went to McAllen, admitting that they were simply following the Atul Gawande article, “Cost Conundrum” in The New Yorker.
But then they added nothing to the story, in fact, detracting from the original piece with this exchange:
“We need to think about reforming the payment system to start rewarding providers for providing better value not just for doing more services,” says Dr. Elliott Fischer.
Back in McAllen, Ruben Ramirez, who sees four different doctors per month, says he should have all the care he needs for his bad back, diabetes and erratic blood pressure.
He told (the CBS reporter) he wants more care, not less.
“That’s what I would like,” he says.
A total non-sequitur. Is the value and are the services discussed by Fisher (yes, it’s Fisher, not Fischer as CBS incorrectly put on its website) the services Ramirez needs?
We don’t know. That would require journalism.
If you want to deconstruct the Gawande piece, there are many ways to do it. Lord knows, many have tried to do so in the past two weeks. But this wasn’t one that contributed anything meaningful to the public discussion.
It simply showed, “Oh, yeah, we read The New Yorker, too!”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
Jody Schoger
June 15, 2009 at 8:32 pmExcellent as always. Thank you. I’ve been screaming to anyone who would listen about the majority of health care reporting after I was treated for cancer. After I studied the disease and treatments, a lot of the health reports (electronic media) seemed almost laughable. You could almost go to PR newswire to see what institution had presented their “discovery for the day.”
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