This is the kind of reporting that does not serve the best interests of “breast cancer awareness month.”
WCCO-TV reports on one woman who they say, “skips federal advice, finds breast cancer.” The station reports, “Last November, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force said women in their 40s should not get routine mammograms.”
That is simply and harmfully incomplete and inaccurate.
Here’s what the USPSTF actually wrote:
“The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.”
The TV story also states that the woman they profiled “is a 42-year-old woman who should have many healthy years ahead of her, and has a very strong opinion about mammograms.” But this inaccurate and imbalanced report didn’t reflect any other opinions – or evidence – to balance the discussion.
Please note that just last week we praised a competing Twin Cities TV station’s reporting on another complex breast cancer issue. That reporting, by KMSP-TV, is a model for what could be done. This story, by WCCO, is not.
It is not in the public interest – not in viewers’ best interests – to simplify this complex issue. It is in response to topics like this that journalism must rise to a higher level of evaluating evidence, of considering shared decision-making approaches, and of presenting the full range of options available to women. If you can’t do that, you might be better off leaving the topics alone because harm can be done.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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.
Liz Seegert
October 5, 2010 at 12:26 pmYou make some excellent points & it’s easy to see the differences in the two pieces. I’ve been writing about healthcare issues for 20 years and the one thing I’ve learned is that there are no “absolutes.” What is protocol today may be considered archaic in 10 years.
Not only is it important for reporters to get their facts correct, but they also need to respect the sensitivity of this issue. There is no one “right” decision for every woman. The only right decision is the one the woman makes for herself. The WCCO report seems to imply that mammograms are the right answer for everyone; it doesn’t discuss the flip side – false positives, or missed lumps or additional radiation exposure. Journalism without balance is an editorial.
Please keep up the great work!
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