[Correction: As the first commenter (at the bottom of the page) points out, I was outdated and inaccurate in referring to The Tribune Company. There are now two companies: Tribune Media and Tribune Publishing. Nonetheless, the placement of this Tribune Media property’s TV story within the Tribune Publishing property’s newspaper/online story was odd and unhelpful for readers. That was my main point, even though I botched how I got there. Thanks to Bethany Kelley for the correction.}
The Tribune Company is parent of the Los Angeles Times.
And I just noticed one small, but significant example, of how an “all in the family” corporate attitude drags down the LA Times’ efforts.
Earlier today, on the other side of this site where we do systematic, criteria-driven news story reviews, we posted our review of the newspaper’s story, “FDA approves a device for weight loss.”
If the Times’ website hasn’t changed by the time you visit the story online, you’ll see a TV story from KDVR Denver plunked down in the middle of the Times’ story.
KDVR is another sibling in the Tribune family. So somebody in marketing or elsewhere in management must have decided this was a great way to cross-promote Tribune properties. (Maybe they do this all the time; this is the first time I’ve noticed it.)
Whereas our reviewers thought the Times’ story was “strong” in certain areas, “carefully and admirably” explaining other areas, the sibling TV story was weak, with nothing I found careful or admirable. (WARNING: this video starts on its own. That’s the way KDVR/Tribune serves it up. Another way to make sure we see it!)
The reporter, in the opening banter with the anchors, said “This is very promising” and that “she liked to hear” that the weight loss device in question would be available this year. How’s that for cheerleading right off the bat?
She interviews “the first surgeon to perfect the newest form of bypass surgery for weight loss…and he explains why it’s so important to have surgical options.”
It wasn’t at all clear from his brief soundbite whether he was addressing the point of the story – the newly FDA-approved device – or options in general.
The TV story gave no details on study results, performance results with the new device, costs, independent perspectives…..
It would have rated a 0 if we had applied our criteria.
Note to the Tribune Company: don’t drag down good efforts by one of your kids by bragging on schlocky efforts by one of your other kids. It might be good for business. But it’s probably not good for morale and might lead to family fights. And it certainly doesn’t help your customers/readers/viewers.
——————-
Tweet
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
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