Note to our followers: Due to a lack of sufficient funding, HealthNewsReview.org will cease daily publication of new content at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. If you wish to donate, your gift might help keep the site available to the public for a few more years, by defraying costs of web hosting and maintenance. All of our 6,000+ published articles contain lessons to help people improve their critical thinking about health care. Read more about our change in status. And here's how to make a donation.

Atlanta TV station has newsmen promoting prostate cancer screening

We interrupt breast cancer awareness month messages to bring you some prostate cancer awareness news.

After we wrote about problems with a Buffalo prostate cancer screening promotion, reader Ken Leebow of Atlanta wrote to me about what the NBC station in Atlanta has been doing.

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.

 

The Radio Television Digital News Association code of ethics states that journalists should:

  •  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.

——————-

Follow us on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer

https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu

and on Facebook.

 

You might also like

Comments

We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.

We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.

Comments are closed.