As we close out the week and prepare to head to a beach for a desperately-needed mid-winter break, here are some catch-up items we meant to write about earlier.
“The question is, can we make enough people go: ‘Hey, you know what? I’m done. I’m done with the sensationalism of media. I’m done being taken advantage of by media companies so that I can have ads sold to me.’ … If we want to make media better, then we’ve got to start consuming better media.”
I have often said that many news organizations are out of touch with the communities they are supposed to serve on health care issues – out of touch with what readers/consumers really need from health care news stories. We base our 10 story review criteria on things we think consumers need from stories.
That’s a wrap.
See you back here on the blog in a week or so with sand still between our toes.
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Gregory D. Pawelski
January 20, 2012 at 3:36 pmGreat post Gary! Thanks for the stray into Skeptical Scalpel’s domain (again). I like his material and he is so right about what he is doing.
Susannah Fox
January 21, 2012 at 8:30 amI second your recommendation for “The Information Diet,” by Clay Johnson, which I am currently reading. It’s not only packed with tips for controlling your info intake, but Clay also infuses it with his Southern charm. Downside: the more you read, the more you crave fried chicken. You’ll see.
The other book I’m reading is “Reinventing Discovery” by Michael Nielsen, which focuses on how scientists who share data & collaborate in open systems are having more significant impact on their fields. Apropos of his points and Skeptical Scalpel’s posts, have you seen this form letter for telling editors you won’t peer-review for their journal if they support the Research Works Act?
If the link doesn’t work, follow William Gunn (@mrgunn) on Twitter — he is my source for it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p2X0nqY250kYVfVbmXT3OuGdhKFif1JtdrOh3hQKy-g/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
Susannah Fox
January 21, 2012 at 8:30 amI second your recommendation for “The Information Diet,” by Clay Johnson, which I am currently reading. It’s not only packed with tips for controlling your info intake, but Clay also infuses it with his Southern charm. Downside: the more you read, the more you crave fried chicken. You’ll see.
The other book I’m reading is “Reinventing Discovery” by Michael Nielsen, which focuses on how scientists who share data & collaborate in open systems are having more significant impact on their fields. Apropos of his points and Skeptical Scalpel’s posts, have you seen this form letter for telling editors you won’t peer-review for their journal if they support the Research Works Act?
If the link doesn’t work, follow William Gunn (@mrgunn) on Twitter — he is my source for it:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p2X0nqY250kYVfVbmXT3OuGdhKFif1JtdrOh3hQKy-g/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1
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