Fox News this week provides us several prime examples of why we look for independent perspectives with no conflicts of interest in news stories about health care.
One story on their website this week is headlined, “3D bioprinting offers minimally invasive surgery options.”
While there are several people quoted in the story, all of them are affiliated with the same research institute and/or worked on the 3D printer product that is covered in the story.
At the very end of the story, one of the investigators projects, “It would be reasonable to consider that we are one to two years away from applying for FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approval.” Nothing in the story challenges that projection.
Someone stands to gain from the promotion of this research – and from any product that would go to market if and and when the FDA approves any such product.
We think such stories should include perspectives from people who don’t stand to gain. Independent perspectives.
To make matters worse, look at this screen shot – and the arrows I’ve added. While the video in the online story is showing a company’s printer, there’s an ad for that same company at the top of the page. Somebody also stands to profit from these cozy editorial-and-advertising arrangements.
Also this week, Fox News published an online story headlined, “DNA rings may detect early cancer, researchers find.”
Again, it was a single-source story. In fact, there was only one researcher interviewed throughout the piece. No independent perspective appeared.
Again, at the very end of the story, that lone researcher is allowed to project “the technology is less than five to 10 years away from clinical use.” There is no one there to challenge that projection.
The story referred to this as a “proof-of-principal study.”
That should be proof of principle. It’s an interesting slip of the keyboard.
Principal can refer to a sum of money earning interest or it can refer to the owner of a commercial business. Money is at stake with the promotion of both of these early technologies that Fox News promoted without the aid of independent voices that have no dog in the hunt.
That’s the principle that matters in this kind of health/medicine/science news.
——————————
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
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