All of us who have worked on HealthNewsReview.org for the past 6 years (5 live, 1 startup-prep-beta year) are grateful for the very kind, touching tributes that we received this past week.
I’m especially grateful for the kind words from veteran science journalist Paul Raeburn on the terrific Knight Science Journalism Tracker. Although, as I noted in a comment I posted attached to his piece, credit should go to a broad team – not just me – and to the pioneering Media Doctor Australia site that helped kick off an international movement that has now extended to projects in a half dozen countries with perhaps more on the way.
Then Curtis Brainard posted a thorough and thoughtful review of our work on the Columbia Journalism Review’s online Observatory column. I often cringe at what is left out of such interviews/columns. Brainard left in many of the most important perspectives that I hoped to convey.
I value hearing from Raeburn and Brainard and so many others who are peers and colleagues in trying to improve health, medical, science journalism.
And the feedback received directly from so many health care journalists at the Association of Health Care Journalists in Philadelphia last week and in this ensuing week has been appreciated, helpful, and inspiring.
Thanks to all of you.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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