Gary Schwitzer is the founder & publisher of HealthNewsReview.org. Back in the 1970s he worked in local TV health news in Milwaukee and Dallas before joining CNN. Then he saw the light and left TV news altogether.
Tom Jacobs, on the Miller-McCune Smart Journalism site, summarizes two recent studies. Excerpts:
“By focusing on shocking new studies that reveal a “novel or controversial” potential cause of the disease, local television news tends “to cultivate the belief that everything causes cancer,” a research team led by Cornell University’s Jeff Niederdeppe writes in the Journal of Communication.
…
(The researchers) conclude by suggesting scientists and educators might want to give local newscasters a nudge.“Researchers and public health officials might consider conducting educational or training sessions with local TV journalists to report on cancer in a way that minimizes the likelihood of developing fatalistic beliefs,” they write. Specifically, reporters should be encouraged to provide “appropriate caveats to new research on cancer causes,” and to emphasize “evidence-based recommendations for cancer prevention.”
While such informational sessions would surely be helpful, decisions on which stories run are inevitably made with ratings in mind. Perhaps TV news directors addicted to scare-mongering health coverage should emulate a surgeon dealing with a tumor, and just cut it out.
We’re not sure if this research team knows about our HealthNewsReview.org project. For more than 3 years we tried to do exactly what they recommend – with network TV health reporters, not at the local level. It didn’t seem to do much good. We announced that we would no longer review even network TV news starting 17 months ago because the quality of a large sample (228 stories) was poor, not improving, and there were other fish for us to fry – other media we were not reviewing who might be more receptive to our outreach.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Addressing conflicts of interest ought to be a standard part of EVERY drug story. Journalism professors ought to be teaching students this, just as they teach them to include name, age and other standard story information. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1290973141758611459
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