Gary Schwitzer is the founder of HealthNewsReview.org and has been its publisher for 14 years. He has been a health care journalist for 47 years. He tweets as @garyschwitzer or as @HealthNewsRevu.
While the overarching theme may be the same – the puzzling editorial decision-making in the New York Times Well blog/column – the specific topics change – and so, provide more examples for instruction.
Bone Drugs May Have Added Benefit: Lower Pneumonia Risk is the headline of the latest troubled piece that caught my eye. The opening line:
Osteoporosis drugs such as Fosamax and Actonel may have an additional benefit: A new study suggests they are associated with a reduced risk for pneumonia.
The entire story used 220 words. There is very little that can be covered effectively in a news story about a biomedical research study in so few words. The story did manage to confuse quite effectively.
Even that opening line mixes the fact that the study only showed a statistical association with the assertion that it showed cause-and-effect. When it pointed to a possible “additional benefit” from the use of osteoporosis drugs – or bisphosphanates – it crossed a line.
At the end, it included a quote from one of the study co-authors and paraphrased him stressing “that the study is observational and does not prove cause and effect.”
But the story used cause-and-effect language throughout:
If the study did not prove cause-and-effect, which it did not, then you can’t prove benefit, risk reduction or lowering, or an effect.
This is a common failure in the Times’ Well blog/column. We regularly point to our primer to help journalists do a better job on observational studies, Observational studies: Does the language fit the evidence? Association vs. causation.
Worse, though, in this case, is that in the entire story there was only discussion of benefits from bisphosphanates and not one mention of side effects or potential harms. We have regularly warned readers that if you ever read a story about a drug study that only discussed potential benefits – but not harms – you should run for the hills because there’s no such thing.
And the potential side effects and harms of bisphosphanates are well known.
This is just a snapshot of the voluminous and evolving medical literature on the harms of bisphosphanates.
But the New York Times never acknowledged that any harms exist – only benefits – and now unproven “additional benefits.”
As I always do, I checked the reader comments in response to this piece. The Times should learn from the experience of its readers. Comment excerpts:
Finally, with all the resources of the Times, the story only quoted one source – a co-author of the paper. No independent perspective was included.
Why was this newsworthy – when the world is focused on the COVID-19 pandemic? Why was this worth even 220 words now? Why did the story explain that the study didn’t prove cause and effect, but then used cause and effect language six times (including the headline)? Why no mention of harms? Why was there no independent perspective with no conflict of interest?
These are the kinds of questions that should be answered for readers. The Times, which is delivering some stellar journalism on COVID-19, should abandon 220-word stories like this one. It only adds to the cacophony of noise from not-ready-for-prime-time health care news.
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