Gary Schwitzer is founder and publisher of HealthNewsReview.org. He tweets as @garyschwitzer.
On one recent day – a quite normal day in the life of our HealthNewsReview.org team – we watched the latest wave of the tsunami of not-ready-for-primetime medical research news coming in to drown the American public.
Jill Adams, who is on the board of the National Association of Science Writers, did her daily search of eligible news stories for our team to review. In her first morning sweep, she came up with only two eligible stories:
Omega-3 Supplements May Ease Anxiety, on the New York Times Well blog. Excerpt: “Over all, omega-3 supplements were associated with significant relief from anxiety symptoms, but some groups benefited more than others.”
Diabetes Drug Might Help Shield the Heart From Smog’s Ill Effects, published by HealthDay. It was based on a study in mice and on human tissue in the lab. It was also based on a news release.
When you study health care news coverage every day as I have done for 45 years, you are often given pause to step back and think, as Vince Lombardi made us think, “What the hell’s going on out here?”
More precisely, think about all of the issues in health care and medicine that are newsworthy. Think about what journalists could be doing with their time on any given day to address those issues. And then think about how and why these stories were chosen on the menu that would be served up to news consumers and health care consumers on that particular day.
This little microcosmic step-back is one we could take every day. It helps explain why the public is confused and turned off by a lot of what they read.
This is not carefully considered news judgment in action. It is simply sitting at your desk and regurgitating something about the journal article du jour. Sometimes, as on this day, it is simply regurgitating PR news release-du-jour information.
One of these came from the newspaper that proudly boasted, “All the news that’s fit to print.” The other came from a news organization that boasts that it “specializes in producing evidence-based health content” and is seen on more than 5,000 websites.
The New York Times devoted all of 216 words to the Omega-3 story. There isn’t a great deal of consumer education and helpful information you can convey about a complicated study in 216 words – and the Times didn’t. Still, even within a very short story, the reporting managed to insert a significant amount of confusion.
You could understand if a reader’s head was spinning after that shift in framing. The story offered no independent evaluation of the 16-study meta-analysis. To its 216 word total, it would have been much better if it had added just a few more, lifted directly from the journal article describing the study:
We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: the New York Times Well blog is often not well. And its readers are no better off after swallowing 216 words like this.
Every single word in the HealthDay story on the diabetes drug and smog appears to come directly from a Northwestern University news release. The quotes that appear didn’t come from a HealthDay writer interviewing those people; they came from the news release. Why not just label the story: “Northwestern University news of the day”? In fact, the Northwestern news release contained much more explanatory information than the journalism piece did.
The Society of Professional Journalists code of ethics states that journalists should: Verify information before releasing it. Use original sources whenever possible. (There was no indication that any of the news release information was verified. And “original sources” does not mean “copy from a news release.”)
We’ve written before about HealthDay rehashing news releases. Another time we wrote, “It’s almost as if readers are flipping a coin any time they click on a HealthDay piece. “Heads” may lead them to real journalism that carefully examines claims and balances them with an independent perspective. “Tails” may lead them to rehashed PR that is likely to exaggerate benefits, minimize or ignore harms, and gloss over key limitations in the evidence.”
HealthDay can continue to brag that it “specializes in producing evidence-based health content” but readers should ask themselves if anyone has evaluated the evidence in question.
Even if, as appears inevitable, we cease regular daily review of health care news at the end of 2018, the kind of scrutiny that we have fostered won’t go away. We believe we have helped spawn a mini reader revolution that will continue to apply healthy skepticism to shoddy health care journalism and PR and advertising and marketing messages.
News organizations and PR departments that choose to ignore the warning signs do so at great risk of their own further peril. On many days the public isn’t getting what they want and need in health care journalism, and front office bean counters are seeing the results in declining circulation and rising reader dissatisfaction. We believe we have provided a blueprint for the kind of health care journalism that people want and need. Read our critiques. Learn from them. And stop the tsunami before it wipes away any remaining vestiges of credibility for shovelware, news release du jour health care news.
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 (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.
Laurence Alter
November 5, 2018 at 1:05 pmDear Gary,
I’ve disagreed with you before on this issue – I wonder if I could be the ONLY one? – regarding a news agency’s reporting on some university study. First, you use highly loaded language; see above with the HealthDay news agency: “rehashed PR” etc. Why not consider it paraphrasing or summarizing. All that should matter is that the news agency does not editorialize or slant the university study. Somehow, you resent this treatment of news, harping and harping and harping over and over again. It seems to gall you – again to quote you, this time in a headline format – “Copy someone else’s work and get paid to put your name on it”. So?? If I wouldn’t have access to that study, otherwise, then LET THE NEWS AGENCY COPY – HOPEFULLY QUOTING CORRECTLY – AND GET PAID FOR IT. Furthermore, in my attempting to erase your clear prejudice for reporters to “copy” (why not say ‘quote’?) and “get paid for it” (should all work voluntarily?), you seem to ignore the process of editing and re-wording/re-phrasing and explaining that goes on. You should adopt a motto for your otherwise very fine website: “If it’s reported verbatem, that’s verboten” (sp.?)
Respectfully,
Laurence
Gary Schwitzer
November 5, 2018 at 4:49 pmLaurence,
Clearly we live on different planets.
You appear to be perfectly comfortable endorsing journalism that is no more than stenography. I do not.
Everything in the diabetes story in question by HealthDay came from a public relations news release. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics states:
When everything in the news release clearly came directly from a public relations news release, there is no evidence that any independent verification occurred. Journalism does not define “original sources” as copying from a news release. It means conducting your own research, conducting your own interviews, and not accepting spoon-feeding from an institutional public relations news release.
If you’re fine with what you are spoon-fed in such stenography, you are welcome to it. Don’t ever say we didn’t warn you. And good luck with that approach.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
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