I’m back from London and Coventry, where Coventry University and the Association of Health Care Journalists (and others) hosted a European health journalism conference last week, which Professor John Lister of Coventry U. called a first of its kind event.
About 70 people from 12 European countries attended.
It quickly became evident how large is the potential for international collaborations between US health journalists – and the leadership of the Association of Health Care Journalists – and European health journalists. Representatives of the Medical Journalists Association and of the National Union of Journalists (both of the UK) attended and spoke.
Issues arose within the first few hours about standards of reporting, about the ethics of accepting industry money to attend conferences or training, and about “triumph over tragedy” stories that may not be patient-centered – just as a few examples.
Two buzzwords were bounced around – churnalism – as hunted down by the relatively new British Churnalism.com site that tries to separate news-release-“journalism” from truly independently vetted journalism.
And a new one to me – “infoxication” – to describe how health care and news consumers are drowning or intoxicated by information. One writer refers to this condition as “information fatigue syndrome.”
Discussion focused on medical journal practices and what journals could do to elevate the quality of the flow of information to physicians, journalists and the public.
A conference blog has short items and some links about some of what was discussed.
(Pictured below are photos of the ruins of the Coventry Cathedral, site of a church since the beginning of the 12th Century, but destroyed in relentless Luftwaffe firebombing on November 14, 1940. The ruins stand as a stunning memorial.)
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.
Ken Leebow
June 27, 2011 at 12:22 pmIn 1989 (BI – Before Internet) there was a book written by Richard Wurman titled: “Information Anxiety”.
Today, more than ever we have info. anxiety. Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and more help create an ever constant flow of data. It may be accurate and it may be total propaganda.
However, it is increasingly hard to decipher. For example, I just got fed this very pretty infographic (seems to be the new buzzword) that presents the negative outcomes of drinking soda … http://bit.ly/jYgSce
Upon reading the small print, one of the sources for the info. was a water company. At that point, I became skeptical.
In this day and age, it’s best to filter, filter, filter … the information. So, instead of Information Anxiety, you have information sanity.
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