I always enjoy former US Senator David Durenberger’s newsletter from the National Institute on Health Policy. I would recommend that readers of this blog subscribe to it. Durenberger was one of the Senate’s leading voices on health policy during his time on the Hill – a voice that continues to resonate with many today.
So I was honored to read this week’s edition, and to see this unsolicited plug for our efforts. He wrote:
SHOULD YOU BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU HEAR OR READ ABOUT HEALTH CARE?
Gary Schwitzer has spent his professional career in journalism and in teaching the role of journalism in society, most recently at the University of Minnesota School of Journalism. Having observed the challenge to health, health care and health policy of inexperienced or biased reporting and less than good scientific research and analysis, Gary has become the “go-to” guy for good reporting and actionable information.
He publishes an online HealthNewsReview.Org which weekly honors excellence and dishonors puffery in journal reporting. No news attracts readers like that which relates to their concerns about their own health or about the costs of their health care. But no one other than Gary Switzer is taking the time to create a standard of accuracy by which actionable information must be judged.
At no time in our history have we been more dependent on good reporting about things beyond our scope or our control than we are today. The ability of unreliable or biased information and its reporting to distort public opinion and destroy public confidence in policy-makers has made it well nigh impossible for elected officials to deliver the hard news we need to hear. Or the good news that is possible from appropriate behavior change. So, every week I take my hat off to Gary Switzer. Awaiting the day that “accuracy tiering” (platinum/gold/silver, e.g) comes to media reporting.
(Correct name spelling was the first one.)
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 (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Elaine Schattner, M.D.
December 22, 2010 at 4:16 pmVery nice, Gary!
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