NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.

7-year old health journalism article suddenly “most viewed” on PLoS Medicine

Posted By

Tags

A long time ago – July of 2005 – I was one of 8 authors of a series of papers published in PLoS Medicine under the umbrella topic, “What Are the Roles and Responsibilities of the Media in Disseminating Health Information?

I wrote about “The Agenda Setting Role of Health Journalists.” I always liked the cover art by Scott Mickelson for the print edition of the journal – bringing to life my line about the risk of journalists becoming “unwitting mouthpieces for incomplete, biased, and imbalanced news and information.” Excerpt:

“It is not the role of journalists to become advocates for causes. However, I believe that journalists have a responsibility to investigate and report on citizens’ needs as they struggle to understand and navigate the health-care system. People need help in understanding the ways in which scientists and policymakers reach conclusions. In that sense, there is an inherent educational role that journalists must assume.”

This was before I started documenting the almost advocacy-like coverage of many screening tests by many news organizations – emphasizing benefits while minimizing or totally ignoring potential harms. I concluded that 2005 piece this way:

“Journalists must weigh the balance between the amount of attention given news about medicine and the attention given news about health and the social determinants of health. There may be too much news about the delivery of medical services and not enough news about the cost of, quality of, and evidence for those services. The current imbalance may contribute to the nation’s health-care cost crisis, driving up demand for expensive, unproven ideas. These are responsibilities journalists may not encounter in covering other topics. In health news, they are everyday issues.”

I was tipped off last week that suddenly, for some reason unknown to me, this seven year old article is now the most viewed on PLoS Medicine, which is an open access online journal.

 

PLoS Medicine is a journal that posts traffic metrics.  From their site, the graph below paints the picture of the sudden interest in the article this month. According to this chart, nearly 30% of the page views of this 7-year old article have occurred just this month of March 2012 so far.

 

Yes, the article continues to be cited from time to time.

But I can’t find any reason behind the sudden spike in traffic.

Clues are welcome.

You might also like

Comments (10)

Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.

Merrill Goozner

March 20, 2012 at 12:29 pm

A professor assigned it to a big lecture class? Anyway, just re-read my contribution. Holds up pretty well over time, as does yours and the others.

Jody Schoger

March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Naturally I’m of the opinion that the surge followed your appearance on #BCSM Monday, February 19….but I am undeniably, completely and uncertifiably BIASED:)

jms

Jody Schoger

March 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

Naturally I’m of the opinion that the surge followed your appearance on #BCSM Monday, February 19….but I am undeniably, completely and uncertifiably BIASED:)

jms

John Ballard

March 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Whatever is causing it is a good thing. In the last few days I have been aware of several unrelated media pieces focused on health care. Zakaria’s feature and a multi-part NPR series are tops. And ABC seems to be paying closer attention. I thought it had to do with the upcoming SCOTUS docket but the popularity of this article may reflect more journalists digging around doing their homework.
Good stuff! We’ll take it however it comes.

John Ballard

March 20, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Whatever is causing it is a good thing. In the last few days I have been aware of several unrelated media pieces focused on health care. Zakaria’s feature and a multi-part NPR series are tops. And ABC seems to be paying closer attention. I thought it had to do with the upcoming SCOTUS docket but the popularity of this article may reflect more journalists digging around doing their homework.
Good stuff! We’ll take it however it comes.

ML Frank

March 21, 2012 at 2:23 pm

I assign it to my students regularly. It’s well written, thoughtful and important.

Erica Jorgensen

March 26, 2012 at 11:43 am

My guess is it’s somehow related to this week’s Supreme Court hearings.