We’ve now published 125 systematic criteria-driven reviews of PR news releases about health care or research. We won’t apply all of our criteria to this one, because it is the often-all-important headline that is the focus of our commentary.
On Twitter, UC Davis professor Jonathan Eisen (@phylogenomics), wrote:
Immunology scientist David Usharauli (@3DiMMUNE) tweeted:
To be clear: this isn’t a comment on the importance or quality of the research. All of the above commentary, with which I agree, is about how the words matter. It’s about how science communication matters. It’s about how PR news releases from major institutions matter. And this news release got off to a very bad start.
Words matter. Our attempt to improve health/medical/science news releases matters.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Diana Yates
February 22, 2016 at 8:39 amWould “Neuroscientists reverse autism-like symptoms in mice” be better? The criticism is fair – and important – but, also to be fair, the headline does not appear to “turn mice into humans.” It’s clear from the whole headline (including the sub-head) that the research was done in mice.
Kevin Lomangino
February 22, 2016 at 10:12 amDiana,
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I think Gary’s point is that your proposed headline would have been much much better. The big bold headline is what most people see and oftentimes what gets picked up by other outlets reposting the content (without the subhead). Context needs to be provided as high up as possible — not after the research has been hyped in the big bold headline.
Kevin Lomangino
Managing Editor
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