Right off the top, let me be clear that I am NOT minimizing the importance of this week’s news about an experimental treatment for leukemia – one that has drawn much news attention.
It is an important finding.
What I am commenting on herein is the news coverage.
The ABC television piece itself wasn’t bad, with good perspective from Dr. Len Lichtenfeld of the American Cancer Society. But the lead-in and the ending, both involving anchor Diane Sawyer, were hyperbolic. The following screenshot was part of Sawyer’s lead-in.
Then, in the studio wrap up at the end of the video piece, general assignment reporter Linsey Davis, who had to handle this piece (and whose taped package wasn’t bad), concluded by saying that researchers hoped to try the approach in “pancreatic, ovarian, prostate and even brain cancer.”
To which Sawyer gushed in amazement:
“Good heavens – pancreatic and brain cancer!”
“Good heavens” because they’re going to TRY it on those cancers? Her ending verbal exclamation point left the impression that there were already amazing results in these cancers.
NBC’s online story had this in the first sentence:
“the sensational results from a single shot could be one of the most significant advances in cancer research in decades.”
Really? After an experiment in 3 people?
A CBS online story found its own depth of hyperbole:
“A new leukemia treatment has experts buzzing over a possible cure that may one day change cancer treatment forever.”
Again, really? After an experiment in 3 people?
Is there any institutional memory left in these news organizations about past cancer breakthroughs after experiments in a handful of people? Breakthroughs that didn’t pan out when experiments went from handfuls to dozens?
Look at how easily some news organizations chose to lead with calm and caveats.
Joe Palca did, in his post on the NPR Shots blog:
“Any time you report on promising but preliminary results about a new therapy for a lethal disease, you worry that you might be raising false hopes. So be warned: Although this is a “good news” story, it’s preliminary. Don’t expect to find it at a hospital near you any time soon.”
Ths is how he opened the story. It wasn’t buried deep at the end.
An AP story calmly and rationally opened:
“Scientists are reporting the first clear success with a new approach for treating leukemia — turning the patients’ own blood cells into assassins that hunt and destroy their cancer cells. They’ve only done it in three patients so far, but the results were striking.”
A Reuters story had a very measured headline, “Gene therapy shown to destroy leukemia tumors.” In fact, the entire piece was restrained, including important reminders:
“The treatment appears safe, but researchers said more study was needed. …In addition, the long-term viability of the treatment is still unknown.”
I think these latter examples did a more responsible job of reporting than the examples at the top of this piece.
Years ago I published a commentary on “The 7 Words You Shouldn’t Use in Medical Journalism.” I didn’t create the list; each of the words was put in my head by patients I’d interviewed. As I wrote at the time:
“A woman struggling with cancer once told me she wished medical reporters would leave the word hope out of their reports and allow consumers to decide how much hope to assign to each story. “
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.
Larry Husten
August 11, 2011 at 2:02 pmThanks, Gary, for writing this. I’ve been waiting for this blog post since about 5:01 PM yesterday when the flood of stories about this paper started appearing in my news feed. We didn’t even need to read the stories: the headlines were enough to prove that something was seriously amiss with the coverage of this potentially significant study of THREE patients.
Lynn Hanessian
August 12, 2011 at 10:55 amTerrific post. In cancer, especially, everything is framed in heroic terms. Someone may die from heart disease, but with cancer, our departed loved ones are described as having waged a brave battle against the disease. The passion inspired by the war with cancer might just be fueling the hyperbole as well.
Bruce Levine
August 16, 2011 at 7:40 amThere has been some thoughtful and appropriate commentary of the hoopla over some media coverage of our papers, including Gary’s post here. I would like to stand up for Bob Bazelle, who reported for MSNBC and NBC on this story and was one of the only reporters to come to Penn and speak with us in depth about the data. He also has a Ph.D. in Immunology and wrote a book about Herceptin, so brings more understanding than most to coverage of immune based therapies.
Leo Catron
August 18, 2011 at 10:33 amGreat News!! Since I have this leukemia, it is exciting yet painful. Who knows how long our system will take to make this a reality for the masses?4 years ago, I recognized the value of this type of an treatment approach and submitted myself to gene therapy at Baylor in Texas. Results were minimal at best.
Frustrated with the inefficiencies of the FDA drug development system I started GivePatientsaFightingChance.com
My version of lowering costs and speeding technology forward. Never thought that I’d see successful gene therapy in my lifetime….And now this!! WOW!!
Deeply hope this strategy stays front and center and doesn’t get stalled with patent attorneys, and all the other beaurocratic things that can happen here. Hope the press will stay with this and not lose interest to the next story of the day. For so many like me, the real story starts now in how this truly good science gets fine tuned and applied to other areas of medicine.
How advocacy groups can help steer the process towards quicker implementation. How many years of life can be saved… For me, that starts with my own.51 year old Dad, Leo
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