Someone suggested that we comment on a CBS segment from two weeks ago. We reviewed it and found it to be the most confusing jumbling of breast cancer screening information we’ve seen from a major news organization.
The anchor began by saying, “Now it seems like we’re getting new recommendations every week and it’s confusing.”
Every week? Only if you make it seem that way.
Then the anchor and physician-correspondent began discussing “the latest study” showing that “mammograms in younger women could increase their risk of cancer.” They discussed an unspecified study in high-risk women, some of whom had mammograms before the age of 20.
Huh? If this was supposed to follow up the US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations for women in their 40s, why were they suddenly talking about mammograms in high-risk women including teenagers? And when you look for breast cancer in high risk women it is no longer accurate to refer to this as “screening.” Screening refers to looking for disease in broad populations of apparently healthy people with unknown risk.
The semantics are important. Or else you’re confusing people even more.
The physician-correspondent immediately followed this discussion by saying that the American Cancer Society stands by its recommendations that the benefits of screening far outweigh the risks.
Again, huh? In the teenagers the segment had just discussed? That’s ludicrous.
Then the segment, which was labeled as being about alternatives to mammograms, discussed only one – ultrasound – calling it “our most important test.” That, dear readers, is a completely unfounded statement.
The anchor quickly shut off the discussion. No other “alternatives” were discussed and the segment whizzed by anyone who was watching in a whirlwind of misinformation that ran one minute and 43 seconds.
Let’s hope most viewers were instead brushing their teeth or getting their first cup of coffee at the time. Better yet, that they had the TV turned off.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Louise Gaunt
December 18, 2009 at 4:42 amOnce again it would appear that the media has allowed their lust for sensationalism to get in the way of sound reporting. It is a little unfortunate that two separate pieces of evidence have been brought to the public attention at the same time. The task force statement on screening mammography is advising that USA adopts the same policy as the rest of the world for screening women with no additional risk factors i.e. to start screening at age 50. The other evidence relates to high risk young women with significant family history of pre-menopausal breast cancer, where it would appear that screening mammography may be harmful. Those of us involved in breast scteening have been seeking alternative screening modalities for high risk young women to avoid excess use of radiation, and for this group MRI would seem to be the most appropriate method currently available. I feel there is some very confused thinking in the media, with unnecessary reporting, which is only adding to public concern. Sometimes, least said is soonest mended – perhaps we should be advising the media to rein back a little in their enthusiasm until they have sought proper medical advise.
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