By reviewing health news coverage every day, we are able to see big pictures of clear patterns unfolding that the casual day-to-day news consumer may miss.
One picture is quite clear. The morning health news segments on ABC, CBS and NBC do the following regularly:
Here is just some of what we’ve observed, broken down by topics. You can look up any of these on the HealthNewsReview.org website. Probably the easiest way is to go to “Find Reviews” > “By News Organization”, then use the pulldown menu to select the news source. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/review/by_org.php?type=Media+Source
We apologize for the length of this note, but we thought it was important for you to see the full pattern of what we see unfolding. We give you the “headline” of the story, the date it aired, the star score it received after our review, and a brief excerpt of our review comments.
Obesity & weight loss & thinning
ABC’s Good Morning America
Breakthrough obesity drug – July 21, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
Miscasts an experimental obesity Rx as potential “silver bullet” for people wanting to drop a few pounds. Oddly refers to interviewee’s potential conflicts of interest as evidence of expertise. Huh?…
Super shot? Can it cut weight by 25%?- July 14, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
Woefully inadequate reporting on animal research on a weight loss drug. Makes the unfounded leap that this is a “promising new drug that could ultimately impact how to control obesity and diabetes.”
Cutting the fat–without incisions: New weight-loss surgery – June 3, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
Breathless enthusiasm – not backed by facts about new incision-free approach to weight loss surgery. Story calls it “remarkable” and “exciting” but that results aren’t as good as gastric bypass….
Blasting Inches Off Without Surgery: New Technique to Lose The Fat – January 5, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
This story medicalizes a normal state of health – a few additional pounds or inches. The story lacked evidence and data from the alleged 50,000 who’ve had it – an astoundingly poor use of air time….
CBS Early Show
The Real Skinny: Liposlim During Lunch? – February 16, 2009 – Rating: (0 stars out of possible 5)
What the anchorman calls a “healthy, gorgeous” young woman gets lunchtime lipo with no discussion of evidence or whether insurance covers it. If your premiums went up because she was in your insurance pool, would you be happy?…
NBC Today show
Lose weight while you sleep? – February 9, 2009 – Rating: (0 stars out of possible 5)
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….
Paralysis & spinal cord injury
ABC’s Good Morning America
In Christopher Reeve’s footsteps: Young man beats the odds – July 16, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
Story focused on one person’s experience but failed to reference any research or provide quantitative data on benefits. No independent expert, no discussion of cost, harms, alternatives or outcomes.
CBS Early Show
Blue Breakthrough? Blue Food Dye Could Help Prevent Spinal Cord Injury – July 28, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of possible 5)
A story about spinal cord injury with no certain human application that implied just the opposite. The fact that the study was done on rats does not appear until 2 minutes into a 3-minute segment. …
Walk on: New device helps paraplegics walk again – July 22, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of possible 5)
This segment puts a check next to nearly every item on a list of Health Journalism Worst Practices. It calls the device new, revolutionary, miracle. The device is none of these. Terribly misleading.
New medical technologies
ABC’s Good Morning America
The Cutting Edge: Robotic Surgery, Today! – May 5, 2009 – Rating: (1 star out of a possible 5)
A few minutes of techno-tainment with inexcusable, almost inconceivable lapses in journalistic hygiene. No discussion of cost, of evidence for benefits or harms, and no independent insight….
The Cutting Edge: Amazing Journey Inside the Brain – May 4, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
Another gee-whiz Good Morning America segment that fits their apparent formula: no discussion of costs, no quantification of benefits or harms, and no independent source….
Cutting edge nail cure – April 9, 2009 – Rating: (0 stars out of a possible 5)
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….
Life-Saving Test: How One Minute Can Save Your Life – March 25, 2009 – Rating: (0 stars out of a possible 5)
The story overstated the risk of esophageal cancer and the value of a new approach for direct visualization and biopsy of the esophagus and was a free ad for a local hospital and a manufacturer. Wow….
America’s leading killer – cardiovascular diseases
ABC’s Good Morning America
Medical Breakthrough: Amazing New Heart Valve Procedure – January 7, 2009 – Rating: (2 stars out of a possible 5)
One week into 2009, calls this “one of the big medical stories of 2009, “groundbreaking,” and “the biggest thing since the heart transplant.” Unfortunately no data are given to support that….
Heart Health: New Treatments For America’s #1 Killer – March 30, 2009 – Rating: (1 star out of a possible 5)
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…
CBS Early Show
Three Heart Tests Every Woman Should Know About – June 18, 2009 – Rating: (0 stars out of possible 5)
Classic morning show health news garbage – confusing screening and diagnostic tests and confusing viewers. And a glaring error on the CBS website claims that heart CT scans had no radiation! On which planet?…
Heart Score: New Treatment for Heart Failure – February 16, 2009 – Rating: (1 star out of possible 5)
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.
NBC Today show
Today’s Matters of the Heart: Dr. Nancy’s Personal Wake-Up Call – February 4, 2009 – Rating: (1 star out of possible 5)
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….
This is a dangerous pattern. Such stories do more harm than good to public understanding of health care. This must change.
We continue to offer our help to any news organization that wants it. We have loads of good story ideas to take the place of this pablum – stories that affect individuals’ health, finances and decision-making – all the makings of good news stories.
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