“Boston Scientific says atrial fibrillation device in demand,” stated the Reuters health news headline.
The entire 357-word story was apparently based on an interview with the Boston Scientific CEO after the company reported first-quarter earnings.
It may have been intended as a “Business” story but it’s labeled as a “Health” story. And we came across it just as many others would – in a web search – where consumer health news is mixed right in with business or stock market news.
No matter how you categorize it, it was a completely one-sided story, as single source stories predictably are. And even if it was intended as a business/stock market story, don’t investors deserve independent perspectives as much as patients or consumers do?
So it describes a Watchman device for atrial fibrillation treatment. And it reports:
All of which may be true. But good journalism seeks independent expert perspectives. And none appeared in this story.
Journalism? Or cheerleading?
When journalism turns over its platform entirely to a corporate voice, hasn’t it just become advertising or public relations?
For a different perspective, read Larry Husten’s Cardiobrief.org piece from just last month, “FDA Approves Watchman Device From Boston Scientific After A Long And Strange Trip.”
Addendum on May 5: Or see this questioning piece of journalism from Markian Hawryluk at the Houston Chronicle, “New device effective in preventing blood clots, but experts fear overuse, high costs.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (1)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
DanWalter
May 8, 2015 at 11:27 amThe Reuters story on Boston Scientific’s atrial fibrillation device is a good example of the role of corporate influence on the media in selling health care products and procedures. The media is also complicit in the selling and promotion by Boston Scientific and other device manufacturers of a product and procedure to treat atrial fibrillation called catheter ablation. This treatment is far more risky and much less effective than advertised, yet due to unquestioning media coverage and virtual recasting of corporate public relations as news, it has become an established therapy.
I wrote a book about my wife’s experience with catheter ablation for afib and describe the role of corporate influence on the media in selling this risky, unproven procedure:
http://www.collateral-damage.net
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