Dr. Valentin Fuster of Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, and editor of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, cites our work in his editorial, “Journalists and Researchers: Equal Responsibility in Protecting the Public.“
Excerpts of his editorial:
“Over the past 10 months in these Editor’s Pages, I have often encouraged my cardiologist colleagues to observe our responsibilities as teachers, leaders, and caregivers. However, in this Editor’s Page, I turn my attention to different guardians of society: the media. As physicians, we are required to take an oath to “do no harm” first and foremost. Even though journalists may seem removed from this responsibility to patients, they publish stories that could affect the health choices of hundreds or thousands of individuals.
(He then cites our paper in JAMA Internal Medicine last May.)
Accordingly, I would like to suggest that journalists and researchers must share equally in shouldering the burden of responsibility to improve appropriate communication about basic and clinical research.
First, there is an obligation on the part of the researchers not to inflate the importance of their findings. …
Second, researchers should take some responsibility for the creation of the press release about their research, which is written by the media or press relations department at their hospital or society. …
I recognize, however, that some journalists are not trained in statistics or clinical data; therefore, the physicians who serve as their sources need to be particularly meticulous and take the time to properly educate reporters about the data. This is the exact juncture where journalists and researchers can come together to equally share the responsibility of properly informing the public about new health research.”
Regarding his second bullet point about news releases, we will soon – perhaps as early as next week – begin publishing our systematic, criteria-driven reviews of health care related news releases.
Regarding his final point about journalists not trained in statistics or clinical data, I will again, for the 9th straight year, help conduct a workshop at the Association of Health Care Journalists annual conference trying to help journalists on some of these issues. “How to accurately report on medical research findings,” will be offered on Thursday, April 23, at 9 a.m. at the conference.
——————-
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@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/
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