Gary Schwitzer is the founder of HealthNewsReview.org and has been its publisher for 14 years. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu.
I’ve written it and said it before: I applaud most of the New York Times pandemic-era news coverage.
But I continue to see head-scratching lapses in editorial approach and judgment – flaws that could be so easily corrected with a bit more caution and care.
Hoping llamas will become coronavirus heroes is a Times story on a journal article that drew a lot of attention from many journalists. One big problem: there were no independent expert perspectives in the Times story. The only people quoted were those involved in the research. Overall, it was a reasonable story, with the cute llama angle, and ample caveats. But quoting only the scientists involved in the work is less than what readers should expect from the Times – or from any of the other news organizations that may have followed their lead. Headlines elsewhere, such as “Could llamas be crucial to finding a preventative COVID-19 cure?” or “Can llamas save us?” were both based on, and linked to the NY Times story.
Meantime, over on the NY Times Well feature, a non-coronavirus story drew the ire of countless readers. This one was headlined, “Filtered Coffee May Be Especially Good for Heart Health.”
Among the most obvious flaws was the failure to point out the limitations of observational research such as this – research that cannot prove cause-and-effect. But that didn’t stop the Times from using causal language such as “the effect on cardiovascular health.” And the coffee story – like the llama story above – offered no independent expert perspective, quoting only the senior researcher on the work.
Adam Cifu, MD, of the University of Chicago, may have kicked off one of the longest Twitter threads I’ve seen in a while.
Anybody else want to join me for a cup of coffee and a session of banging your head against the wall regarding this article? @VPrasadMDMPH @chrishendel @garyschwitzer https://t.co/mSRHx2mFNS
— Adam Cifu (@adamcifu) May 6, 2020
Among the comments from others on the ensuing Twitter thread:
Does it matter if The Times’ Well column is regularly scorned by readers as long as the online click rate rises? Apparently not.
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