That’s the phrase cardiovascular news specialist Larry Husten used on his Cardiobrief blog (which also appeared on Forbes) in his own followup to my critiques last week. Husten took the critique to a new level, and interviewed one expert who said her comments were misquoted or used out of context.
The weekly email digest that I sent out today steps back from the fury and furor of last week as we saw one, then a second, then a third troubled example of news stories on heart screening tests pile up on TV network newscasts or websites.
If you’ve never read of one of our weekly digests, this is a good one to start with. It may be our best effort yet – largely due to the serendipity of last week’s circumstances. You can sign up to receive these email digests at this link.
The digest allows us one last chance, as we move from one week to the next, to reflect on big picture themes that otherwise might be missed. This week’s digest addresses three big themes:
non-evidence-based promotions of various heart screening tests by journalists
the unavoidable fact that all three story examples came from TV networks
the further unavoidable fact that 2 of the 3 examples were reported by physician-reporters, who, as Andrew Holtz wrote, seem to have problems overcoming “the ‘patient in front of me’ orientation of medicine in order to develop a sense of what the public needs to get in news coverage of health and medicine.”
After reading this week’s email digest, one journalist wrote to me on Twitter today saying:
“You’re like Don Quixote on this one, but keep tilting.”
A veteran science communicator wrote to me:
“How do you personally cope with the constancy of frustration with the cavalier way much reporting is done today?”
I care very deeply about these issues. That’s what drives me. It does wear on me to see the same troublesome trends continuing and perhaps broadening and deepening. But I think it’s important to practice journalism about journalism – and to directly address flaws and try to effect change.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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