Let me be clear that the following is a glimpse of only one story each from two different medium-sized papers. So it should not be construed as systematic overall praise for one nor an indictment of another.
But the examples – the likes of which we see every day in our HealthNewsReview.org work – nonetheless hold some lessons about the struggles squeezed staffs at mid-sized papers face in trying to cover complex health care news. Yet there’s a lesson herein about how one can be successful despite the pressures.
The South Florida Sun-Sentinel got a five-star score for its story about an unproven approach to autism coming to the local area. Excerpt of the review:
“A new and unproven approach to autism pops up in a local community. A reporter and his newspaper have several choices:
1. Accept the claims of the promoters at face value
2. Ignore the issue entirely.
3. Dig in, scrutinize the claims, and attempt a public service by evaluating the evidence for local readers.Thankfully, this reporter and this paper chose #3.”
But the San Jose Mercury News got a low two-star score (that one of our reviewers commented was too high) for its story about a new device being used in its area to treat blood clots. Excerpt of our review:
This story baldly misstates the evidence (or lack thereof) supporting the effectiveness of a device used to dissolve certain blood clots. Indeed, a careful reader would not even have to delve into the medical evidence to realize something is amiss. The story calls the Trellis Peripheral Infusion Device “life-saving,” effective, and safer and quicker than alternative therapies. However, it notes that only a handful of doctors across the country use the device (even though it has been on the market since 2005) and the clinician quoted in the story says he has used it on only eight patients, even though he sees more than 100 similar patients every year. A reader might well wonder, “If this device is so great, why do so few doctors use it and why do even those who do use it prefer to use different treatments for the overwhelming majority of their patients?” The story ignores that glaring inconsistency.
This story is also an extreme example of disease-mongering. It portrays deep vein thrombosis as a leading killer. However, not only is the death toll figure it uses taken from a misleading statement on a web site sponsored by a pharmaceutical company that sells drugs to treat the condition, the quoted number of deaths is 30 times the estimated toll listed in a recent report from the U.S. Surgeon General.
We wanted to point out this comparison – random and incomplete though it may be. Both reviews were posted the same day. Both stories done by mid-sized papers. One excelled in scrutinizing claims. One failed in our view.
Perhaps one approach could be a model for the other.
We need to help journalists do a better job of healthy skepticism. Otherwise how in the world will their readers ever get the full story?
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.
Gregory D. Pawelski
August 5, 2010 at 9:50 amI have somewhat of a sense about newspapers trying to cover any health care news, let alone complex health care news. The “pressures” being the editors. Reporters at our small newspaper went after the Commonwealth when an outbreak happened at a personal care home. They were hit with stone walls everywhere, the welfare department, the health department and because the home was within city limits, the city health department. All the reporters got was that the problems were corrected. Their editors wouldn’t run a story because the official sources said the home took proper corrective action. The particular home had bed bugs and scabies. Of course, when I approached one of the reporters about a scabies outbreak at the nursing home I yanked my mother out of seventeen months ago, it went on deaf ears. Not the reporter’s ears, the editors. When the newspaper has to report on one of its main sources of revenue, no news gets out on it. The only buck$ in town.
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