NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
July 13, 2009
Well-intentioned but misguided support for early breast screening bill
Here’s proof that local TV news can do a meaty job on a meaningful health policy issue. At a time when more local TV news becomes light, fluffy, “news you can use” that you really can’t use, this effort is a refreshing and important use of airtime.
Jeff Baillon of Fox-9 TV news in Minneapolis-St. Paul put together a piece on US Senator Amy Klobuchar’s (D-Minn.) support for “The EARLY Act,” which Baillon reports, “would spend $9 million a year over five years on an educational campaign that would, among other things, encourage women as young as 15 years old to perform regular breast self exams in the hopes of catching the disease early.”
But rather than go with the flow of what appears to be a noble cause, Baillon reported that there’s no scientific evidence that screening young women in their teens and 20s does any good, and that it could actually do some harm.
MinnPost.com has also recently reported on the controversy surrounding the legislation.
I am not aware that the “big 3” of Minnesota news organizations – the Star Tribune, the Pioneer Press, or Minnesota Public Radio – have even touched the controversy. I will happily issue a correction if I simply missed anything they have done on the matter.
I know that two of the interviews Baillon used in this piece were captured when he attended a journalist workshop hosted by the National Institutes of Health last month. He paid his own way there. But he wanted to learn more about how to scrutinize claims in health care. This piece is good evidence of what he’s learned. (Disclosure: Baillon was a student in my graduate health journalism seminar in Fall 2008. He got an A.)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Good for Baillon to dig into this. But he got it wrong. There are plenty of benefits to educating young adult women about breast cancer risk. And there’s a lot to like about the EARLY Act. Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, explains why in a new piece in Roll Call, at http://www.rollcall.com/news/36687-1.html.
Our Comments Policy
We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.
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.
“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”
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.
.@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/
If you’re covering COVID-19, you need a robust understanding of how to report on health and science news (and when you're in over your head). Get a leg up with these insights from @garyschwitzer.
Tech sites @MacRumors & @TechCrunch hype #AppleWatch’s ability to predict #COVID19 without providing the evidence. @mtmdphd was keen observer. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/tech-sites-hype-apple-watch-for-covid-19-prediction-without-providing-the-evidence/
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.
Gregory Dennis
July 13, 2009 at 4:05 pmGood for Baillon to dig into this. But he got it wrong. There are plenty of benefits to educating young adult women about breast cancer risk. And there’s a lot to like about the EARLY Act.
Nancy Brinker, founder of the Susan G. Komen Foundation, explains why in a new piece in Roll Call, at http://www.rollcall.com/news/36687-1.html.
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