This week I’m attending the summer meeting of the Foundation for Informed Medical Decision Making’s medical editors in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. (If you’re interested, you can follow the live tweeting thread at hashtag #sdmjh11.) The Foundation has been the sole sponsor of my HealthNewsReview.org project for the past 5+ years.
Since I’m on the road, I’m publishing a series of video clips from a taping done by the hosts of the NIH Medicine in the Media conference two weeks ago at Dartmouth College in Hanover, NH.
Part 1, below, is a brief summary of what we’ve found after 5 years of reviewing stories that make claims about treatments, tests, products and procedures.
In Part 2, on Tuesday, I’ll discuss my optimism for the future of health care journalism, despite some of the troublesome findings reported in Part 1 above.
In Part 3, on Wednesday, I’ll remind journalists of the help that’s available to them in most communities to evaluate evidence and to scrutinize claims.
In Part 4, on Thursday, I’ll explain why stories about “new stuff” in health care are really health care reform stories, even if they’re not framed that way, and how communication of benefits/harms of new interventions is a major health policy issue.
In the final clip, Part 5 on Friday, I’ll give some advice to readers, viewers, consumers, physicians, researchers – anyone who is upset about health care news coverage that is biased, imbalanced or incomplete.
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