Wrong because observational studies can’t prove cause-and-effect. So causal language like “lowers risk” is simply inaccurate. And the constant banner across the bottom of the screen – “2 cups lowers uterine cancer risk” – is misleading. Physician-correspondent Jennifer Ashton never mentioned the limitations of observational studies. And she never corrected the anchor when she said she didn’t drink coffee but maybe she should start, nor when the anchor asked, “Besides drinking coffee, what can you do….”
What’s the harm in this? This is the kind of “yes, it’s good for you….no it isn’t” superfluous news coverage that helps all journalism lose credibility with the public.
Read our primer on misleading language on observational studies to learn more.
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 (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Rogue Medic
May 12, 2010 at 11:47 amThis also leads to complaints that science is frequently wrong. When research is reported inaccurately, it isn’t the science that is the problem, it is the reporting. However, that is not the way the eventual awareness errors is reported or interpreted.
BARRY RAMO MD
May 17, 2010 at 10:12 pmi think that his story is reflective of a very poor understanding of clinical trial. The study is flowed in many was most obvious ways. I think if the network is going to allow this doctor to report this type of non science, they are doing a disservice. i think the Dr. needs a basic course n epidemiology. sadly as your site points out, reports lke this undermine legitimate medical advance report because viewers tell me one day you say one thing and then it is wrong the next day.
I would suggest the doctor look at the conclusions fro the nurses studies on HRT which indicated that HRT cut risk for heart attacks, dementia and then the randomized control studies which showed the harmful effects of HRT.
Barry Ramo MD
Medical Editor KOAT TV (abc)
I
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