Was it Bill O’Reilly I was hearing? Sean Hannity?
No, it was CNN’s Dr. Sanjay Gupta, badgering Lucy Marion, PhD, RN, a member of the US Preventive Services Task Force in what felt like a paternalistic, heavy-handed, show-how-tough-you-can-be style.
His line of questioning:
“Are you comfortable with what you’re saying?
You’re a nurse….What you’re saying is that some lives are not worth it – that’s why we’re changing these recommendations.
That’s an incredibly frightening thing to hear from someone like yourself. Is that what you’re saying?”
The “you’re a nurse” comment could be interpreted many ways. One of them could be, “I’m a doctor and you’re only a nurse….” That was certainly the tone of the interview.
This segment was brought to my attention by a reader of this blog – who wrote:
“She was basically made to defend a position (that Dr. Gupta asserted as fact) that she thinks increased deaths due to reduced screening are okay. It was a pretty crappy tactic.
…It’s a shame that a physician would use his credibility to bolster the tactics of hit-and-run media, but that’s about what this amounts to. …
I hope physicians-that-are-also-journalists start realizing that by (ab)using their positions of trust as doctors to lend credibility to hit-and-run stories, they cheapen both medicine and journalism.”
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.
Wellescent Health Blog
November 18, 2009 at 4:53 pmIt is unfortunate to see such tactics in the interview instead of trying to understand the why behind changing the recommended screening guidelines. A combination of policy and evidence-based analysis has gone into making this recommendation, so it would best serve the public if the reasons were explored instead of being dismissed.
K.Hartley
November 18, 2009 at 5:13 pmand don’t forget he conveniently ignored her PhD title of Dr. Marion by calling her Mrs. Marion. I guess he wanted to make sure viewers didn’t mistake her for a medical doctor like himself – she was just a nurse after all. He was extremely condescending and as a woman I found his interviewing style offensive. I don’t know how Dr. Marion kept her cool, but I did enjoy her response to “you’re a nurse…” with “and you are a physician” – she didn’t let his cheap shots get to her.
Myke Locksmith
November 19, 2009 at 2:50 pmAlmost all of what we think is journalism is nothing more than biased editorial commentary. I’ve never felt such a division of the country I do today. The tactics that are used by both sides of the fence are despicable, insulting to the intelligence of the American people, and pose little hope for progress and improvement. It truly saddens me.
Roshan
November 19, 2009 at 10:57 pmThis guy was being considered to be our Surgeon General???? By insulting the intelligence of USPSTF members, Dr. Gupta and others are seriously undermining their own credibility.
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