CBS story on pancreatic cancer vaccine provides only one glowing anecdote – no data

Gary Schwitzer

Kristina,
Thanks for your note.
First, let me correct some assertions you made. You wrote, “Before we judge Jennifer Ashton and tell her she’s the worst reporter in the world for giving people false hope…” Who made that judgment? We didn’t. We didn’t write it, say it, think it. So your comment starts on a false note.
Second, you write, “I doubt that the details you are looking for can be crammed into a three and a half minute news segment.” Yes they can. We’ve reviewed other stories that have done so. I worked in TV health news for 15 years. It can be done.
Third, you also write, “who’s to say she didn’t research and report all of those things you were talking about, and the editor just decided there wasn’t enough time to fit that into the segment, so he cut it out? In TV news, the reporter doesn’t have total control over his or her report.” If that is the case, that is an important inherent flaw in TV news that seems important to bring to peoples’ attention.
Fourth, you wrote, “Can you honestly tell me that the average person watching a three and a half minute segment on cancer is interested in hearing about data, clinical results and a bunch of other medical jargon?” Yes, I can honestly tell you that smart, informed health care consumers want more information about evidence, about harms and benefits, about costs, etc.
Fifth, you write, “A morning show like the Early Show isn’t necessarily a news show.” Then why it is labeled CBS News on the air and on its website? Why is Dr. Ashton’s title “medical correspondent”?
Sixth, you write that “at the end of the day, this story’s main audience is patients with pancreatic cancer and their families.” Really? A broadcast news program – reaching untold people of unknown backgrounds has as its main audience a limited slice of the overall population as if it knows who is watching?
Finally, you conclude, “And when you’re faced with certain death, I don’t see the problem with at least giving it a shot. What do they have to lose?” Nothing we wrote says people shouldn’t have that shot. What we wrote addressed the journalism – not the research or patient care. What we fervently believe people should get from such a story is a better sense of balance on what’s known and what’s not known about potential benefits and harms over what period of time and in how many people so far. One positive personal anecdote doesn’t tell viewers very much at all. The plural of anecdote is not data.