Two papers (one from an American group, one led by an Italian group) in the New England Journal of Medicine about bariatric surgery versus drug therapy for obese people with diabetes drew lots of news attention.
At one end of the spectrum were the TV networks. The NBC/MSNBC version of the story seemed to feel the need to use sensational language in order to sell the importance of the findings. The story included these terms:
“may be a cure”
“Potentially game-changing research”
“breakthrough”
“sensational”
“amazing”
ABC used “cure” and “breakthrough” in its lead-in. In the body of the story, it featured a soundbite of a doctor telling a surgery patient, “Your days of medication for diabetes are over for the rest of your life.” At the very end of the story, Dr. Richard Besser explained that “we don’t know how long these benefits last” – but that is in direct contrast to what the dramatic soundbite stated as fact earlier in the piece. Who’s editing this stuff?
At the other end of the spectrum were a bunch of stories that didn’t employ any such terms, letting the evidence speak for itself.
CBS News employed none of the sensational terms used by its ABC and NBC competitors. Kudos to them for the restraint.
The New York Times offered the calm headline, “Surgery for diabetes may be better than standard treatment.” Not quite the breathless tone of the one above. In fact, it directly countered the “game-changing” quote with this one:
The president for medicine and science for the American Diabetes Association, Dr. Vivian Fonseca, said the two studies were “not game changers” because they were relatively small.
The Washington Post reminded readers “The studies are continuing to follow the patients for five years to see whether the benefits of surgery are sustained.”
WebMD avoided hype with its headline: “Weight Loss Surgery Puts Diabetes Into Remission.”
NPR reminded listeners/readers:
“The new studies followed only about 200 patients. And while the operations appear to be pretty safe, there can be complications. And the complications can be serious.
“I think we need longer-term follow-up than what was done in these studies to make sure you’re not trading one problem for another,” said Vivian Fonsecaof the American Diabetes Association.
American news consumers and health care consumers are overwhelmed by sensationalism in health care news. We become numb from the repeated use of terms such as cure and breakthrough. Journalists can educate citizens without using sensationalism. They can help readers and viewers and listeners develop critical thinking skills to analyze medical research.
Some of the stories we’ve pointed out above did a far better job of that than others.
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
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Markus
March 30, 2012 at 4:56 amShould be interesting with a follow up with more people than 200 patients involved.
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