We recently wrote about “experts” offering diagnoses of what happened to the Los Angeles TV reporter whose garbled speech while doing a live shot during the Grammy Awards drew so much attention. Experts who hadn’t even examined the woman.
But new concerns are being raised about the seemingly endless diagnoses now being offered about actor Charlie Sheen – based on how he appears on TV.
From a CelebrityDiagnosis.com post on MedPage Today:
“Barry Goldwater was a five-term Republican senator from Arizona and his party’s nominee for President in the 1964 election, which was won by Democrat Lyndon Johnson. There is a rich history of Goldwater’s life and political career, but the part of it we’d like to tell you about here gives him something in common with actor Charlie Sheen. Like Sheen, Goldwater was subjected to public statements about his mental state by physicians who, in Goldwater’s case, were interviewed for a magazine article. This article was published just before the 1964 election and questioned his fitness for office.
This behavior of psychiatrists, who offered diagnoses of Goldwater without ever having examined him, led directly to new professional ethics standards from the American Psychiatric Association (APA) which has to occasionally remind psychiatrists of the Goldwater Rule against commenting on the mental conditions of people they have not personally examined.”
Paul Raeburn wrote on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker:
Reporters: If your editors are pushing you to diagnose Sheen, resist. Occupy the state capitol or a public square.
Editors: If you are pushing your reporters to do a medical story on Sheen, resist. Instead, look around for somebody in your family suffering from mental illness, and encourage the reporter to diagnose that person-your brother, or your cousin, or your mother or child. Sound like a good idea?
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 (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
George Schwarz
March 1, 2011 at 12:51 pmDon’t you think the bigger issue is paying all this attention to celebrities? We waste way too much time on them, both in- and outside the media.
Kate Murphy
March 7, 2011 at 10:58 amI agree that there is too much media coverage of Charlie Sheen.
So why am I clicking on all things Sheen?
I’m busy, got important things to do and read, should be reading health blogs or stories about collapsing Libya, but I am drawn to Charlie’s latest rant or Charlie’s latest diagnosis.
Twitter reports there are twelve trucks off the road or stuck in the snow on Rt 81 this morning. I click on the story, hoping to see those crumpled trucks. Luckily they’ve closed the road so rubberneckers like me can’t rush over to see.
Meanwhile, I read about Charlie Sheen. I sign up to follow him on Twitter.
Maybe I need some of those psychiatrists eager to diagnosis Charlie to tell me something about myself.
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