After 2+ days of nonstop epidemiology, biostats, evidence-based journalism training at the NIH Medicine in the Media workshop, hosted at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire this week, many participants broke for a healthy hike up to Holt’s Ledge at the Dartmouth skiway.
Then they came down from the mountaintop and dug back into another day of training.
Kudos to Dr. Barry Kramer, founder of these workshops, which have now trained about 450 journalists in 9 sessions over the past 10 years. And to Drs. Steve Woloshin and Lisa Schwartz of Dartmouth who have continued to refine the curriculum. Other kudos to Kelli Marciel, Gil Welch, Emily DeVoto, Jennifer Croswell and others who have contributed mightily to the success of this effort through the years.
I have now spoken at 4 or 5 of these, am always honored to be asked back, and continue to learn myself each time I attend.
No one who attends these workshops is ever the same.
They learn about hype.
They learn how to scrutinize claims.
They learn that a publication in a medical journal isn’t bulletproof.
They learn the hierarchy of evidence.
They learn the limitations of observational studies.
They learn from good and bad examples of health care journalism.
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.
Susan Fitzgerald
July 18, 2011 at 11:49 amThis is great work you’re doing – a service to the nation.
The Oregon Association of Newspaper Publishers just reported the dozens of winners of this year’s awards — I didn’t see a category for health. But it’d be great to see any news association’s health awards use your criteria for reporting as part of its rating.
Thanks for the tip on the mousepads with the 10 criteria for evaluating health research news – getting them to circulate among reporters in Pacific NW.
Patrick Center
July 18, 2011 at 2:25 pmGary:
What a great program!
I’d like to thank those who offered their expertise and everyone who attended.
Already I’m questioning a news release from the Van Andel Institute – NEW USE FOR AN OLD DRUG: CHLOROQUINE FINDING MAY LEAD TO TREATMENTS FOR ARTHRITIS, CANCER, AND OTHER DISEASES.
“Scientists demonstrate on the molecular level how the anti-malaria drug chloroquine represses inflammation, which may provide a blueprint for new strategies for treating inflammation and a multitude of autoimmune diseases such as arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and certain cancers.”
When I requested more info the study was sent to me.
Too bad there weren’t some numbers to crunch for determining absolute or relative risk.
It turned out to be a study of mice (on the molecular level).
I’m going to monitor how many local outlets cover this story as “news.”
Gary, I’m thankful for the opportunity to have met you and discuss news coverage. Brew in good health!
Patrick Center
News Director
WGVU
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