Gary Schwitzer is Publisher of HealthNewsReview.org. He Tweets as @garyschwitzer, or under our project signature, @HealthNewsRevu.
The (Minneapolis) Star Tribune published a fairly good example of how to inform, but not mislead or cheerlead, when reporting about early Alzheimer’s research results.
Let’s start with the headline and subhead:
Alzheimer’s researchers at University of Minnesota reverse memory loss in mice
The research could lead to new treatments for humans, but that would be 10 years away.
Yes, it probably only made news because it was about a local research effort in Minneapolis. Chances are this wouldn’t have been reported by the Star Tribune if it had come out of the University of Wisconsin, just a few hours away.
But there was no hometown cheerleading.
Instead, the story included:
Finally, since it is often how a story starts and how it ends that makes an impact on readers, the ending also provided context and caution with a final quote from the researcher:
“You have to test it in animals first to make sure it works, make sure it’s safe,” she said, before even testing it on people. That’s why, she said, even if all goes well, it will be years “before there would be a pill that you could get from the pharmacy.”
So the story left little doubt about context: interesting research from a researcher with an interesting track record, but nowhere near any human application or implication.
It didn’t seem like a Herculean effort for the paper to report it in this way, but it stands apart from a lot of what we see in Alzheimer’s disease (and other health care news) reporting – or in PR news releases. For example:
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
In researching this @bopinon column on medical misinformation, I reached @garyschwitzer who said the information pollution problem goes back to the 1980s, when PR people started tempting reporters with easy, uplifting, prepackaged hype.
https://t.co/ch8rz2MqY4
https://t.co/4AeZZXNhiE
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