A Chicago journalist friend wrote me recently about a story in the Chicago Tribune. The accompanying message read, “This one belongs in the paid ads department.”
It was another story singing the praises of proton beam therapy for cancer. It followed almost the exact same formula of a Columbus Dispatch story we wrote about earlier on this blog:
unfortunate person has to travel a long way to get proton beam therapy he/she can’t get closer to home;
but good news is on the way: soon the “same cutting-edge” therapy wlll be available closer to home.
There was none of the discussion that good journalism would present about questions concerning technology proliferation in the absence of evidence. (Both the Columbus story and two far better examples of journalism on proton beam therapy are available here.)
This may have been suburban news farmed out to the Warrenville, IL or Central DuPage reporter.
But it also appears in the Chicago Tribune, supposedly one of the nation’s best, and, usually home to some of the best health journalism. But not on this story. Not on this day.
“First in Illinois and ninth in the nation.” Perhaps. But there was no discussion of how many such centers Illinois, or the entire Midwest, or the entire nation really need – especially given questions of evidence about this highly-expensive technology. In fact, the story mentions that a competing proton center project is “on hold.” There was a only a single throw-away line about “an approval process with state regulators” that could easily be viewed as those damned bureaucrats squelching progress.
Well, such questions are important. Illinois residents and readers and health care consumers should care. We all should.
Shame on the Chicago Tribune for a simplistic, cheerleading, imbalanced and incomplete story.
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 (8)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Leonard Arzt
October 7, 2010 at 6:41 pmI’m all for the Chicago Tribune writers and editors informing and educating cancer patients in the state of Illinois about the benefits of proton therapy. I’m all for “singing the praises of proton beam therapy for cancer” especially when it can save lives and improve patients quality of life. Who can argue with that? I recommend
your readers go to http://www.proton-therapy. org and learn more about
proton therapy. We’re non-profit. We have no paid ads. Just the
facts about the most advanced form of radiation treatment
available today.
Leonard Arzt
National Association for Proton Therapy
Gary Schwitzer
October 8, 2010 at 1:25 amLeonard,
My posted comments policy is to delete any comment making any kind of product pitch, which yours clearly is.
Nonetheless, in the interests of an open (albeit commercial) exchange of ideas, I have left your comment intact.
For better balance, however, I recommend that readers read the NYT and Goozner pieces linked to from within my original post.
Gary Schwitzer
Gary Schwitzer
October 8, 2010 at 1:58 amBetter than the Columbus Dispatch, see how Columbus Business First has reported on this issue.
http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2008/12/22/story3.html
Let’s hope the crosstown competition raises the level of all ships.
GS
SM Fitzgerald
October 8, 2010 at 3:28 pmGary, this article in NYT about the culture of Sam Zell’s Tribune Inc. might explain the article you mentioned: http://nyti.ms/co6KiR
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