This is just a periodic reminder to our readers: yes, we are aware of the difficult economic times many are facing in the news industry.
Sometimes journalists will write to us, defensively, saying things like: “I hope I’m still around by the end of year for you to criticize!”
Our message about the need for improvements in health care journalism is often not directed solely or even primarily at the worker bees reporting and writing and producing the stories. We know what they’re up against. Our message is often directed at their management.
I often make this comparison:
Just because automakers have had some tough economic times doesn’t mean that consumers should be satisfied if the rear axle falls off as they drive away from the dealership showroom.
Just because the news industry has faced tough times (after many boom years) doesn’t mean that news consumers should be satisfied with incomplete, imbalanced stories. Especially with health care news. Our consistent message is that if managment can’t devote adequate staffing, resources and training to those covering health care news, they should consider not covering health care news. Because this is one area – of all topical areas – where people can be harmed by suboptimal reporting.
If journalists need us to help them convey that message to management, we’re available to help.
Addendum: American Health Line’s Blog also comments on the “trend … that newspapers over the previous few years have begun dedicating fewer and fewer reporters to health policy coverage” and went on to address what was described as “an alarming imbalance in health policy news” in just the past week.
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.
Gregory D. Pawelski
February 9, 2012 at 1:01 pmYour posting sparked a reflection of a journalist interview my mom had three years ago. He was from a major news organization headquartered in NYC. He spent the whole day, coming down from NYC, to interview my mother (who I just yanked out of a private, for-profit nursing home, to live with me) for a story about the elderly in nursing homes.
During the interview, I remarked to him how he was able to devote such time and resources at getting a story. He said it was the graciousness of the organization’s founder that gave him and all the people on the staff, the old fashion opportunity to search out the news (the nitty gritty so to speak).
He was thankful to him for still allowing journalists to be journalists, the way I’ve always remembered them. However, when he was finished with his story and presented it to his editor, I guess the editor thought the story was too complex and maybe politically unpleasant to publish (the private, for-profit nursing home has large tentacles).
In February of 2009, we were in the middle of the Great Recession, yet he was still able to spend the time and resources. Ironically, the story wasn’t published. Perhaps it was the beginning of dedicating fewer and fewer reporters to health policy coverage?
Good post Gary!
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