I am a frequent critic of TV health news – and especially of much of this week’s TV coverage of the US Preventive Services Task Force mammography recommendations. So I want to make special note this week of some of the fine work by Dr. Nancy Snyderman on this issue. I’ve seen several examples where she offered more explanation and context than her network TV competitors.
Case in point: this clip on yesterday’s NBC Today Show.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
In it, Snyderman said: “What we as a population were unwilling to accept – which has become very apparent in the last 48 hours – is that we didn’t like the message.” Yet she emphasized that the message was what the science shows.
She said HHS secretary Sebelius threw the task force under the bus and oversimplified the message by telling women “keep doing what you’re doing.”
She said “emotion, anecdote, lobbying, advocacy groups, doctors and patients” led to a political reversal.
She said “This is the role of scientists to take the emotion out of the science. That was their charge – look at the hard numbers and give recommendations back.”
While she editorialized on Sebelius, her even-handed comments on the work of the task force stood in sharp contrast to some of what was broadcast on ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox.
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.
Laura Nikolaides
November 23, 2009 at 10:39 amWe at the National Breast Cancer Coalition agree that Dr. Nancy Snyderman did an excellent job of covering the USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendations this past week. She covered the issue in a fair, balanced, and appropriate manner and continued throughout the week to keep the focus on the science and evidence, and on what is best for women’s health.
We have information and tips on discussing breast cancer with the media at http://takeaction.stopbreastcancer.org/TalkMedia.
Laura Nikolaides
Research Manager
National Breast Cancer Coalition
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