I know this probably feels like Germany day on this blog. But what’s wrong with that?
In writing earlier about my visit to Dortmund last week, I remembered that some of my brief thoughts on “The Future of Health Journalism” were published in the German journal, Public Health Forum, this month.
Summary:
“The future of health journalism will be determined by which roles journalists choose for themselves: cheerleader or watchdog, fear-mongerer or evidence-based reporter, part of the solution or part of the problem.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Dr. Thomas Kron
September 20, 2010 at 3:33 pmDear Gary,
you are right saying journalists have to choose which role they want to play…
One big problem in Germany at this time is, that too much medical writers can`t live without PR.
This results in PR-stories,which are too often better than real journalistic stories. Especially writing for physicians (we have a lot of newspapers and magazines only for physicians)is a bad thing. The quality is really getting worse.
After more than 20 years of experience in medical writing I don’t think that a lot of medical writers will think about their role as journalists. They only want to survive.
Sascha Karberg
September 23, 2010 at 12:17 pmDear Dr. Thomas Kron, I agree, that choosing quality journalism won’t lead to a Porsche. But one can make a living, even as a full-time freelance science journalist with a quite big family. Well, it’s just a Fiat, but it still drives!
Seriously, even in times of shrinking article fees, choosing to write high-quality stories (or at least having the goal to meet some quality criteria) won’t automatically result in personal bankruptcy. The goal of the German media doctor is to raise the awareness of quality criteria in medical and science journalism. To make publishers more aware of the consequences of cheap, PR based “cut-and-paste” articles. To force “journalists to think about their role as journalists”, as you say. And, finally, to encourage freelance journalists, editors and publishers to come together to find new, creative ways to come up with good stories despite the overall financial pressure.
You may think, I’m a dreamer (might be true, my experience sums up to just 10, not 20 years). But I really think, it’s not always a question of money but also a question of organization or priorities to publish a good or a bad story. E.g.: Why is it so important to “be the first” with a certain news, if the news is just wrong? Wouldn’t it be better to think first, ask (interview) a few more experts (or at least one!) and publish the right thing a day or two later? Wouldn’t “the reader” be pleased and thankful?
Financial restrains exist in all parts of the economy these days. But this shouldn’t be an automatic excuse to drop quality. Especially because Germany with its system of publicly financed TV and radio is still in a quite comfortable position, compared to other countries – namely the US.
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