Our team applied our 10 standardized criteria to review more than 225 news stories and more than 100 news releases in 2015.
Reminder: we don’t review every kind of health news story. We only review stories that include claims about interventions: treatments, tests, products or procedures. And we only review stories reported by the set list of news organizations that we review regularly.
Below are the report cards:
News story grades 2006-2015 by all 10 criteria – click on image to see larger file
Average star score for 2,113 stories from 2006-2015 – click on image to see larger file
On our website, you can find an interactive chart that shows average grades for all of the more than 2,100 stories we’ve reviewed in our almost 10 year history. You can also compare any given news organization’s average with that overall aggregate average. You may find that we haven’t found time to review some of the news organizations very many times yet; there is just too much health care news for us to manage on many days. This chart is only for journalism – for news stories.
Now the news release report card:
News release grades for the 1st 103 releases by all 10 criteria – click on file for larger image
Average star score for 103 news releases reviewed in 2015 – click on file for larger image
About a month ago, managing editor Kevin Lomangino wrote a brief overview of some of the trends we’ve observed while reviewing news releases this year.
Everything we do – and have done for nearly the past 10 years on this project – is focused on trying to improve media messages by offering constructive criticism. No one likes to be criticized. I like the following thoughts about the value of criticism:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Progression-free survival: medical jargon that fuels public confusion about cancer treatment & journalism often fails to clarify. @mcjaklevic w/help from @VincentRK @adamcifu @Deadline2020 @DrAttai https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/10/how-one-bit-of-medical-jargon-fuels-public-confusion-about-cancer-treatments/
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1177189641218330625
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