The NBC Today Show is traveling around the country this week taking viewers “inside the operating room” to see various procedures. 
Monday it was Cleveland and a heart arrhythmia procedure. Very high tech stuff.
Tuesday it was Boston and a baby born by C-section. Absolutely no news. Just drama and cute fat baby video.
An “Inside the Operating Room” series, of course, is going to make surgery and high-tech interventions seem dramatic.
I only wish we’d see a week-long series on primary care – doctors and nurse practitioners and RNs and others dealing with patients in shared decision-making encounters. Last week, at the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making’s annual research and policy forum, I talked with two health care consumers who truly exemplified the ideal of informed and shared decision-making. Mary Bianchi of Northern California talked about her breast cancer decision-making and Larry Forsberg of Minnesota talked about his BPH decision-making. I wish more Americans could hear more often (in news stories and elsewhere) from smart, informed patients and consumers like these two.
They may not involve high-tech interventions, but primary care encounters are where a lot of the rubber-meets-the-road health care happens – and where true health care reform might take place.
I’m not holding my breath to see that weeklong TV series, though.
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 (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.
Aurora
February 2, 2010 at 3:42 pmYou have a good point. It’s true that medical news covers the exciting and cute stuff more than the simply informative- that is what they think will sell. And it certainly does draw the eye and attention. If you were going to make a show about primary care, what would happen in it?
-Aurora from MDiTV, a new internet-based medical news tv company, (also really interested in what you are talking about)
http://www.mditv.com
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