NBC News led into last night’s story about insulin for Alzheimer’s disease with anchor Brian Williams calling it “a big health news story.”
Then, in the first line of the piece, reporter Robert Bazell said, “It could be a dramatic new treatment for Alzheimer ‘s disease.” There was no mention of what the study authors wrote:
“Although we achieved statistical significance for our primary outcome measure, the observed effects were small in absolute terms, and thus their clinical significance is unclear.”
Seems like a pretty important caveat to include.
“Unclear significance” – in the researchers’ own words? Or “could be a dramatic new treatment” – in the reporter’s selection of words?
[2017 Update: This video is no longer available. But you can find the transcript HERE]
We know TV reporters are squeezed for time. But rather than hyping “It could be a dramatic new treatment for Alzheimer ‘s disease,” CNN’s Elizabeth Landau chose to use these words: “It’s premature to think of this as a treatment.”
Just as pithy. Just not as sensational. Far more responsible.
Don’t miss our systematic review of the New York Times piece on the study.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
FINALLY..... a commonsense analysis of yet more HYPE in the media about the next great hope for eliminating breast cancer. Thanks @mcjaklevic and @HealthNewsRevu. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1192417365843206145
Here we go again: another “simple blood test" for early detection of breast cancer. News reports shout “CANCER BREAKTHROUGH” & other hype for preliminary, very limited findings. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/11/theranos-redux-not-really-but-claim-of-a-simple-test-for-breast-cancer-warrants-scrutiny/
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