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.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Case counts still matter. “(There) are stories that may not be told adequately if only hospitalizations and deaths are emphasized.” @garyschwitzer interviewed by @dbauder of @AP. https://apnews.com/article/omicron-changing-news-outlets-covid-data-da9272f7c4c8a109c3bfb56bed9e9c76
My friend Gary @garyschwitzer wrote to his city council representative in a Minnesota town about a Viva Las Vegas event scheduled for January.
The response he got seems to perfectly capture where we are now.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/12/2021-ends-with-covid-craziness-in-sports-and-politics/
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 pmA 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 pmNaturally 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 pmNaturally 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 pmWhatever 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 pmWhatever 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 pmI assign it to my students regularly. It’s well written, thoughtful and important.
Erica Jorgensen
March 26, 2012 at 11:43 amMy guess is it’s somehow related to this week’s Supreme Court hearings.
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