A study of only one week’s reporting in Italian print publications is published in PLoS One online. Conclusions:
“Our study shows that print health science reporting, one of the major sources of news for clinicians and consumers in Italy has a number of problems that limit its reliability and make it “unbearably light”. Unreported costs and risks, emphasized benefits, undisclosed financial conflicts of interest and exaggerated claims about new medical approaches may create medicalization of non-diseases or incorrectly influence decisions about treatment choices and medical care. As previously pointed out, newspapers do not exist to improve public understanding of health science, but have the potential to contribute to this. Among many examples of incomplete and unbalanced articles, some good reporting results about health can be found. However, this study suggests that there is much room for improvement.”
They cite our work. Not surprisingly, their results are very similar to what we’ve seen now in more than 1,000 stories by more than 70 US news organizations.
(Hat tip to Ed Yong. )
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 Newman
March 24, 2010 at 9:32 amThis is hardly surprising, given that someone like Rupert Murdoch heads Italy, a part of the story that nobody seems to have addressed. It does, however, merit some ink.
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