A news story – it’s not labeled as an editorial or as an advertisement – on a New Jersey news website bemoaned how “doctors will soon be forced to scale back or discontinue medical imaging services, due to the major reimbursement cuts recently released in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ (CMS) 2010 Physician Fee Schedule.”
The story went on to quote four sources who promoted the need for imaging support – but it quoted no one who talked about questions of overuse of, and overspending on, medical imaging.
So a reader weighed in on the online comment section, writing:
“Is this a press release or a news story? Are you paid by the imaging lobby?
The part about “stifling innovation” and “delivering better outcomes with less radiation” is downright disturbing, particularly in light of a a recent National Cancer Institute report that said 29,000 cancers – and 14,500 deaths – related to radiation exposure from CT tests will occur in people who were scanned just in the year 2007.
You should know your reporting could be hurting people. How about an article detailing the risks of CT scans to provide some balance to your readers? Imaging can help but medical researchers are quickly discovering it’s vastly overused, particularly for heart disease and musculoskeletal disorders. Not only can the radiation harm you, it can lead people to get unnecessary surgeries that carry the risk of harming them for life.”
Thank goodness the “news website” posts comments. In this case, it made the page look smarter and more balanced.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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.
geridoc
December 20, 2009 at 3:20 pmIt is disturbing how easy it seems to be to get the “news” media to present as news what are actually highly biased points of view. As this “news” story of medical imaging illustrates, these points of view are often of questionable accuracy at best, and at worst risks harming the health of readers. It seems some news organizations are willing to present an unresearched press release as news.
Another example of this phenomenon is discussed in a post by Dr. Eric Widera which details media reporting suggesting morphine promotes cancer growth, inspite of no evidence for this contention. The reporting seems to have emanated from an effort to promote a very expensive drug which blocks the actions of morphine.
http://www.geripal.org/2009/11/does-morphine-stimulate-cancer-growth.html
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