The following is a guest post by Kevin Lomangino, managing editor of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @Klomangino.
____________________
If you haven’t heard, HealthNewsReview.org is paying more attention to news releases these days.
Behind the scenes here, we’ve been quietly reviewing health care-related news releases in the same way we review news stories.
We’ve banked about a dozen of these reviews so far, and we hope to publish them some time in April when our entire site gets a makeover and relaunch. (You can read more about our big plans here.)
In the meantime, I wanted to share snippets from a recent news release review that demonstrate what this new initiative is all about.
Reviewers Earle Holland and Christopher Kim evaluated a release issued by the University of Adelaide, Australia that made a bold claim about a new fertility treatment:
The release explains, reasonably enough, that obesity is associated with a litany of fertility-related problems and can hinder the ability to conceive.
And in their “breakthrough” research, the release tells us, University researchers administered certain compounds that “restored egg quality, embryo development and mitochondrial DNA to levels equivalent to those of a healthy mother. Effectively, the problem was fully reversed.”
But our review team found a hole in the release’s tale of scientific discovery and therapeutic innovation: There was no mention of the word “mice.”
Our reviewers noted that “the release talks about damage that can be ‘passed from a mother to her children’ — not from a MOUSE mother to her MOUSE children.'” In fact, they added, “The release clearly equates the findings to human women and their children. Moreover, it goes even further to suggest such changes can be corrected, although no human trials have even begun. This is deceptive.”
The closest this release gets to mentioning mice is several paragraphs in, where it talks about “laboratory studies.” Readers cannot be expected to know than “laboratory studies” means mice.
If you need confirmation of that claim, look no further than a UK Daily Mail story based on the release that also failed completely to mention anything about rodents:
And the Daily Mail was not the only outlet to be taken in by the University’s of Adelaide’s careless description of the study:
We also identified dozens of outlets that appear to have to reposted the release verbatim.
Meanwhile, the Australian Broadcasting Company mentioned mice in the first sentence of their story about the study.
And The Scientist Magazine left no doubt about the nature of the study in its coverage.
What we’ve uncovered here is an egregious example of a larger trend in health news media.
Evidence increasingly shows that news releases are a big part of the problem when it comes to exaggeration and hype in health stories.
And with our news release reviews, we plan to carefully, systematically shine a light on practices that serve to mislead rather than inform.
We’ll also be looking for institutions that take their communication responsibilities seriously, and holding them up to the community as a positive example.
We hope these efforts will advance our mission of improving the public dialogue about health care.
———————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
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