Yes.
We had two this week:
And here are some examples from the archives:
Just as you can’t judge a book by its cover, you can’t judge a story by its star score or grade. Please read our commentary. We give reasons why we voted satisfactory or unsatisfactory on each of 10 criteria. And there are times – as seen above – where stories address most or all of our criteria and still are lacking in key context, caveats or framing.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
David Finer
June 3, 2012 at 5:42 amHi Gary
I am glad you addressed the possible flaws not only in the media reports but I guess, in any rating system. I know you are constantly developing your thoughts on criteria, and that the German Mediendoktor.de, e.g. uses additional criteria to the ones on other Media Doctor sites and, indeed, Health New Review. Under the auspices of a research foundation, we have recently launched an MD-like service in Sweden on news about Complementaryt and Alternative medicine in the media. However, I envisage probably adding and revising rating criteria over time based on feedback from health care workers, journalists, laymen and others. Based on the story you penned above, on the limitations of the rating system as I read it, are you currently thinking of ways to include assessments of i.a. “key context, caveats or framing”? I appreciate the need to limit the number of criteria for the tool to be usable at the same time… but there are indeed also other important aspects of medical writing, some qwhich the current criteria do not
David Finer
June 3, 2012 at 5:42 amHi Gary
I am glad you addressed the possible flaws not only in the media reports but I guess, in any rating system. I know you are constantly developing your thoughts on criteria, and that the German Mediendoktor.de, e.g. uses additional criteria to the ones on other Media Doctor sites and, indeed, Health New Review. Under the auspices of a research foundation, we have recently launched an MD-like service in Sweden on news about Complementaryt and Alternative medicine in the media. However, I envisage probably adding and revising rating criteria over time based on feedback from health care workers, journalists, laymen and others. Based on the story you penned above, on the limitations of the rating system as I read it, are you currently thinking of ways to include assessments of i.a. “key context, caveats or framing”? I appreciate the need to limit the number of criteria for the tool to be usable at the same time… but there are indeed also other important aspects of medical writing, some qwhich the current criteria do not
David Finer
June 3, 2012 at 5:44 amSorry, the last words should read:
…but there are indeed also other important aspects of medical writing, some of which are quality criteria, which the current rating criteria do not address.
Gary Schwitzer
June 4, 2012 at 8:28 amDavid,
Thanks for your note.
We don’t post separate criteria for context, caveats or framing. But we embed our assessments for these qualities within our commentary on each criterion.
It’s difficult to provide an overall grade for context; a story may provide ample contextual information on cost, for example, while providing no broader information on existing alternatives. Another story may address many criteria, but the framing strikes us as disease-mongering. We think that the more specific we can be, the more helpful is our critique.
That is why we remind all readers of our site to go beyond the “grade” or “star score” and read our comments.
David Finer
June 3, 2012 at 5:44 amSorry, the last words should read:
…but there are indeed also other important aspects of medical writing, some of which are quality criteria, which the current rating criteria do not address.
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