My local NBC station (KARE-11) reported the “coffee may protect against heart failure” study 9 minutes deep into its local newscast last evening. It wasn’t a local study. It wasn’t a local story. In our community, we had a 5 year old shot and killed while he was sleeping in his home. We had major flooding in the state this week. We had news of a longrunning battle between 3M and local citizens over burning hazardous material. We had lots of big local news. But this TV station grabbed a story off the wire and put it up high in their newscast.
Another observational study about supposed benefits of coffee with no discussion of the limitations of observational studies and how they can’t establish cause-and-effect.
In other media, tired old coffee clichés and the same tired old trend of failing to explain the limitations of such research played out over and over.
“Hey java drinkers, that coffee buzz you love so much may also help prevent heart failure
…They found that those who drank a moderate amount of coffee daily, defined as the equivalent of two 8-ounce American cups per day, may experience protective benefits against heart failure by as much as 11 percent.”
Protective benefit? Wrong. Can’t be proven by such a study. Strong statistical assocation? That would be OK.
“Could two cups of coffee a day keep the heart doctor away? A new study shows that your daily cup of joe might provide that health benefit.”
“If you need an excuse to pour yourself that second cup of coffee, read on. Moderate, daily coffee drinking may be good for your heart — to a point, a new study suggests.”
“That morning cup o’ joe or mid-afternoon coffee pick-me-up may play a role in keeping your heart healthy, depending on how much you drink.”
I don’t know which is worse: the tired old writing that isn’t cute (cup o’ joe…if you need an excuse…java drinkers…coffee buzz…) or the tired old failure of most of these stories to explain how observational studies are done, what they can show and what they can’t.
Here are two examples of a better job of journalism:
However, he stresses that “the study does not prove benefit [of coffee in reducing heart failure risk].”
Researchers caution, however, that they can’t be sure whether these associations mean that drinking coffee actually makes people live longer.
As tired as we are of this continuing trend of journalistic failure to evaluate the quality of the evidence, we continue to try to help journalists and it is in that spirit that we once again remind people of our primer on the proper language to use in describing observational studies.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Progression-free survival: medical jargon that fuels public confusion about cancer treatment & journalism often fails to clarify. @mcjaklevic w/help from @VincentRK @adamcifu @Deadline2020 @DrAttai https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/10/how-one-bit-of-medical-jargon-fuels-public-confusion-about-cancer-treatments/
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1177189641218330625
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Rober Dacey
July 2, 2012 at 6:15 pmAs usual, marketing via media press releases is more important than evidence-based reports. As part of the process, the credibility of the media is challenged. And, it should be. The best a consumer can do is ignore such “stories.” I do.
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