Gary Schwitzer launched HealthNewsReview.org on April 17, 2006, modeling it after a Media Doctor Australia project he so admired. Looking back (with closure pending) he is thankful for the opportunity, the funding he received, the platform, the team he assembled, the 6,000+ articles produced, and the impact. He tweets as @garyschwitzer.
We chose this Thanksgiving week to present a podcast in which our “magnificent seven” – our small editorial team – each reflect on a single observation about health care journalism after working on this project.
For me, that’s a reflection on a 45-year career, but also on more than 13 years since I started planning this project in 2005. Each of us, I know, reflects on how fortunate we have been to be able to do this work and to keep this project – indeed, this movement – alive for this long. We are thankful for the opportunity to be able to do what no one else in the U.S. was doing – and what few worldwide had even attempted. We are grateful for having the platform to apply our skills, knowledge and experience to try to help people – especially confused health care consumers – who are truly in need of accurate, balanced and complete information. We are blessed to have had each other to work with in our small core group. Our backgrounds were quite different but our hearts and minds were in the same place, with the same motivation and the same dedication to improving the public dialogue that is still too often so misinformed.
Our plan for this podcast was to ask each staff member to identify one key observation about what they had seen and learned while working on HealthNewsReview.org. Our talented podcast producer, Michael Joyce, put it all together.
Here’s our team in the order in which you heard them on the podcast, as well as a few additional resources to dive deeper into some of the lessons and themes they highlighted.
Theme: Uncertainty
Some more from Gary on Science Writing in the Age of Denial, and uncertainty and prostate screening guidelines.
Another good read: Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science
Theme: The polluted stream
Here’s our podcast on the polluted stream, and an egregious example we exposed in 2016:
The baseless promotion of chocolate milk for concussions by the University of Maryland.
Theme: The importance of audience
Just how misleading can news releases be? Kat recommends our series on Problematic PR releases.
The last time a news release received a 5-star rating from our reviewers was December 27, 2016. Here is that review.
Theme: Scope & accountability
Joy uses the medical device industry — in particular, a device called the Life Vest — as an example of a lack of accountability.
Here is some of her writing on the Life Vest, as well as a broader look into other problems in the medical device industry.
Theme: How excellent writing challenges the prevailing narrative
For examples of excellence in health care journalism, Jill recommends our 5-Star Friday series.
An example of how a misguided narrative gets established; in this case, the ‘optimism’ narrative in Alzheimer’s disease.
Theme: It’s a tough beat, but not hopeless
Mary Chris mentions that, for the most part, the term “fake news” is very misleading.
However, there are also times when the term is spot-on. Here’s an example.
Theme: Time
In this podcast, a look at the consequences of doctors and patients having less time together.
The New York Times “Well” section is unwell: what happens when a newspaper starts taking less time reporting medical 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.
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