Three top-rated five-star stories were reviewed on HealthNewsReview.org late last week – a rare occurence.
Rarer still, two were network TV stories (CBS Evening News and ABC World News)- both on a published study on the HPV vaccine Gardasil’s safety. Both stories mentioned aggressive marketing techniques by the manufacturer Merck such as paying medical societies to promote the drug. Such conflicts of interest don’t often appear in network TV stories. However, this angle didn’t require any digging by the networks; it appeared in a published article.
The third five-star story last week was by the Los Angeles Times and it differed from the other two on topic and approach. But it was similar in that it delivered a message not often found in news stories.
Differences: it was on mammography and it was an enterprise story – something the Times initiated on its own, not merely reflecting what was published in a journal or announced at a news conference.
It did a terrific job explaining the idea that breast cancer screening may be harmful – a point not often discussed in news stories – and a vital issue for consumers to understand.
Congratulations to all three news organizations. We look for more pieces on conflicts of interest in health care and those that question the conventional wisdom.
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