NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine - https://archive.org/web/.
October 16, 2013
Atlanta TV station has newsmen promoting prostate cancer screening
What is particularly problematic in this campaign is that journalists are blatantly taking an advocacy stance on behalf of a practice that comes with deep reservations and cautions from leading health care groups, as noted in our Buffalo post.
In this video (top) and in the flyer (below), you’ll see WXIA newsmen becoming pitchmen for a cause.
Recognize that service in the public interest creates an obligation to reflect the diversity of the community and guard against oversimplification of issues or events. (My comment: this campaign clearly oversimplifies the complexity of the decision to consider prostate cancer screening.)
Provide a full range of information to enable the public to make enlightened decisions. (My comment: where is the full range of – or even a hint at – the tradeoffs involved between potential benefits and harms in prostate cancer screening?)
Journalists should not engage in activities that may compromise their integrity or independence.(My comment: once you partner with a health care facility and advocate for their cause, how can the audience ever be assured that you will report on that entity with the same vigor as if that partnership/advocacy relationship did not exist?)
That doesn’t even begin to address the “Independence” clause of the code, which begins: “Professional electronic journalists should defend the independence of all journalists from those seeking influence or control over news content.”
Any journalist who put on that gown for these ads has been influenced by those seeking influence.
Finally, read the ad copy in the lowest ad. It says “If your doctor recommends prostate cancer screening for you….” Whoa. How does that mesh with the call for “screening decisions to be based on patient preferences” ? This isn’t about doctors’ recommendations. This is about men being fully informed about what they stand to gain and what they stand to lose, and then plugging their own values and preferences into that equation.
Fully informed. Something not possible from this silly ad campaign that turns newsmen into promoters.
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
We welcome comments, which users can leave at the end of any of our systematic story reviews or at the end of any of our blog posts.
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.
“Shed light, not just heat. Facts, challenges, disagreements, corrections — those are all fine. Attacking the person, instead of the idea or the interpretation, is neither acceptable nor helpful.”
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.
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
If you’re covering COVID-19, you need a robust understanding of how to report on health and science news (and when you're in over your head). Get a leg up with these insights from @garyschwitzer.
Tech sites @MacRumors & @TechCrunch hype #AppleWatch’s ability to predict #COVID19 without providing the evidence. @mtmdphd was keen observer. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/tech-sites-hype-apple-watch-for-covid-19-prediction-without-providing-the-evidence/
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