Soon – as of November – there will be at least five international websites devoted to the same approach to improving health/medical/science journalism. Last week, in Dortmund, Germany, I met with Professor Holger Wormer (left in the picture below) of the University of Dortmund and freelance journalist Marcus Anhäuser (on the right in the photo), two principals in planning what will be called “Medien-Doktor.de – the German HealthNewsReview.”
Last week, Wormer and Anhäuser brought in more than a dozen of the people who will be story reviewers for the German site. And I helped give them background on our US effort and offer some tips on how to apply our 10 standardized criteria when reviewing stories. (I remember clearly when I got this kind of help five years ago from Dr. David Henry, who helped found the Media Doctor Australia site.) They were an impressive group – all journalists – but many with advanced science or medical degrees. And they work in many different media – online, print, radio, TV, books.
The German team has some interesting new twists – some of which I may adopt. But each new player in this international field has brought something new and important to the effort. Here’s a screen shot of their draft home page. Remember: the site won’t go live until some time in November.
Interesting personal side note. If you think American football fans are crazy, look at the picture below of two objects on the adjoining desks of two people at the University of Dortmund who are involved in this web project. The bunnies represent different soccer teams – and the differing fan interests of the two office-mates. Clearly, from the picture, one team got the better of the other in recent competition – at least in the office if not on the field!
I’m glad I don’t share an office with a Bears fan prior to next week’s Monday Night Football showdown between the Packers and Bears.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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.
Dr. Thomas Kron
September 23, 2010 at 1:41 amDear Gary,
all the German members are journalists, but Klaus Koch is working at the so called “IQWiG”, which isn`t an independent institute. Some people think it’s a very special kind of lobby group.
Marcus Anhäuser
September 23, 2010 at 9:47 amDear Thomas Kron,
what’s your problem with having Klaus Koch in this group?
Klaus works since three years for the IQWIG. Before that he worked more than ten years as a medical journalist for Süddeutsche Zeitung and Ärzteblatt and was well known for his independent and critical writing. He is one of the best health journalists I know here in Germany, he was one of these guys who established EbM-thinking in German health journalism.
You should know him as former Editor-in-Chief of the Ärzte-Zeitung?
So what could be wrong having him in the group?
Perhaps you can explain your concerns.
Dr. Thomas Kron
October 12, 2010 at 9:38 amDear Marcus Anhäuser
I don’t have any problem with him. He is a good journalist, there is not doubt about it. That’s one reason he has been invited for by the “Fach- und Standespresse” to a meeting in the next month, talking about EBM. But he isn’t independent, because the so called “IQWiG” isn’t independent, as everbody being involved in this discussion in Germany knows. It’s simply a matter of transparency – or possible conflicts of interest. And after more than 20 years of being involved in this kind of business, I don’t believe that there is anybody without interests.
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