That’s the headline my friend and colleague Andrew Holtz used to top a column he wrote on the Association of Health Care Journalists’ website. (The column is referenced on the AHCJ blog but is available only to AHCJ members. Andrew invited me to pull excerpts.)
He reflects on journalists’ obsession with stories about medical interventions in a high-tech medical model, while encouraging journalists to consider public health angles. Excerpts:
“Sure, we are in the news business … so it’s not enough to repeat the basic advice to eat better and be more active. But if you expand your perspective from a narrow focus on medical interventions, you will find studies, policies and events that relate to health in ways that connect directly to the daily lives of many more people.
…
How are we doing on smoking? Tracking surveys from the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics indicate that tobacco control progress seems to be stalling.
…
How about obesity and diabetes? Which areas in the country are doing better or worse and what explanations are there?
…
How has the recession affected heart health? It seems that surgical procedures are down and probably more people are dropping their medicines. Both are related to losses of jobs and insurance. Is the cutback in medical interventions reflected in heart disease outcomes? And if not, what would that say about what the biggest influences on heart health really are?
…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for spicy stories about gee whiz medical advances and sweet tales of research ingenuity, but like salt and sugar, they shouldn’t dominate the news diet. And they don’t need to. There are piles of powerful and relevant health stories out there that don’t begin and end with doctors in white coats.”
The online members-only version has many helpful tips on resources, complete with links.
So, if you’re a journalist, join AHCJ to get this and other member benefits.
Disclosure: Andrew is also one of our story reviewers and a sometimes-substitute-Publisher for me on HealthNewsReview.org
.
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.
Comments are closed.
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