“You’ve probably never heard of Dr. Tim Wilt. He doesn’t have a TV show. No advice column in the newspaper.”
That’s how my friend (and former graduate student) Jeff Baillon of KMSP-TV began his 5 1/2 minute TV news sweeps period piece last night about Dr. Tim Wilt of the Minneapolis VA – a member of the US Preventive Services Task Force.
Yes, you read that correctly: a 5 1/2 minute TV news all-important sweeps period piece on the apparently-dull topic of an evidence-based doc. But Baillon, as he often does, would not let medium-specific limitations (gotta be visual, gotta be sexy, “if it bleeds, it leads” etc.) hold him back from telling an important story that TV news rarely shows an interest in.
Here’s the video clip: let’s hope KMSP doesn’t remove this video after a certain time as it’s done in the past when I’ve tried to promote Baillon’s work.
My wife said to me after she saw the piece, “He made it so human.”
Maybe if more journalists met, interviewed, and gave an accurate reflection of who the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) members are – as Baillon did – we would have fewer stories that painted them as:
Nice job, Jeff.
————————–
Addendum more than 4 hours later: My blog post and Tweet about the story above generated quite a bit of online discussion, including the following exchange between Scott Hensley of the NPR Shots blog and urologist Benjamin J. Davies of Pitt. You can start at the bottom and read up to follow it chronologically. I’m not sure, though, that the discussion ever rose up out of the bottom. The urologist Tweeter slams Dr. Timothy Wilt (whom he called “a jerk” in a subsequent Tweet), and USPSTF chair Dr. Virginia Moyer. With Moyer, he rolled out the already-tired claim that a woman pediatrician can’t know anything about evidence regarding prostate cancer. He says it disgusts him. There’s really very little value in shedding light on these Tweets except to point out once again how ugly the public dialogue can be when scientific evidence and strongly-held beliefs collide.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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.
Kenny Lin
November 6, 2012 at 10:41 amI had the privilege of working with Tim Wilt in his role as an evidence reviewer, advisor, and then member of the USPSTF from 2006-2010. All class – thoughtful, considerate, and determined to improve the health of the nation by highlighting the evidence, even if that means telling people that certain screening tests (e.g. PSA) are just about worthless.
Veneta Masson
November 6, 2012 at 11:18 amNice job, indeed. Kudos to both Baillon and Wilt. Perhaps similar profiles of other Task Force members would indeed reduce the prejudice and fear of those who believe “the government is going to ration health care and keep me from getting the tests I need.” This would then shore up clinicians who experience significant peer pressure and real concern about liability and ratings if they fail to keep on steering their patients toward so-called preventive screening tests.
elizabeth neary, md, ms nutrition
November 6, 2012 at 12:34 pmGreat presentation—need to get this word out to general public
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