March 6, 2013
Health News Briefs – even by the best – too brief to be useful?
Delivery of health care news online removes many of the limitations of delivery in print. Space limitations are gone. They can be creatively addressed by providing links to more resources and to provide more context. But that often doesn’t happen – even by some news organizations considered to be the best.
The New York Times Well blog, for example, has had these brief posts recently:
- Back Pain Unrelieved by Steroid Shots (231 words, some of which were that the author: “acknowledged that the sample was not large and that there might have been factors the study was unable to control for.”)
All were single source stories; there was no independent expert evaluation of the evidence in any of these briefs.
Several of these fell into our hopper for consideration for our systematic story reviews whereby we apply our 10 standardized criteria to the review of stories. But that felt like shooting fish in a barrel because it was immediately clear that these < 300 word stories wouldn’t fare well at all. So I chose to drop back and address the trend and the format once again.
This is not a new issue. Our criticism is not a hasty, off-the-cuff, in-the-moment reaction. We’ve thought about – and written about – these points quite a bit. See some of our past posts on the topic:
Not all entries on the NYT Well blog are so short. In fact, some of the longer ones are those that also appeared in the printed paper (!). A recent Well blog piece, “Questions About Robotic Hysterectomy,” is a good example of better, more complete reporting posted on this blog.
And it’s not just the Times that does this. But why not start at the top?
————————–
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
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.
Comments are closed.
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