News consumers are often unaware of how much of what they read is dominated by – and may, in fact, be simply a minimal re-write of – PR news releases written by people whose job it is to make their institution, their faculty, their ideas, their research or their products look as good as they possibly can.
Today, probably more than ever, many supposedly independently-vetted news stories are actually just mirror images of PR news releases.
Media messages can cause real harm to real people. On our series page, see more stories like Helen Haskell’s and share your own.
Indeed, even after a widely-publicized public relations debacle that we were the first to explore in our review of a University of Maryland news release claiming that their special chocolate milk helped football players with concussions, at least one media messenger was still unquestioningly parroting the unsubstantiated claims made in the news release. (The blog post in question was published the day after the university announced an institutional review of the whole matter.) Others, of course, failed to question the news release’s claims when it first came out, and published stories without demanding data, and therefore, without giving adequate explanations to readers.
We often write that there can be harm from inaccurate, imbalanced, incomplete media messages about health care. But in this podcast, we profile a woman whose family was harmed – at least emotionally, while already facing a devastating cancer diagnosis.
Here are before-and-after pictures of Vickie Smith’s brother-in-law, Richard Sarti. The second photo was taken after his glioblastoma cancer surgery.
People who write news releases and news stories about health care should keep real people like Richard Sarti in mind before they hit “send” or “publish.”
Here’s the news release from the Translational Genomics Research Institute, including the line, “And the FDA has already approved it” at the end of the 5th paragraph.
Here was our review of that news release, which we headlined, “TGen uses slippery language to get around fact that “breakthrough” drug for brain tumors never tested in humans.” We gave it a low one-star score.
If you do a Google Health news search, you’ll find quite an assortment of stories based on that news release, including these headlines:
You can imagine the impact of this kind of news on people with glioblastoma and their families. It makes me sick.
Addendum:
On July 16, 2016, six months after this post and podcast were published, Richard Sarti died. His sister-in-law, Vickie Smith wrote to me:
“I deeply appreciate the efforts of those who invest themselves in shedding light on the truths left out of mainstream media and even official studies. It’s easy to think about how little difference it may make to a society that is largely conditioned to accept what they’re being told.People like you who continue to work against the odds are why there is hope in the world. The concept of evil prospering when good people do nothing is why what you and others do, to shine light on truth and expose lies, matters so much.Best wishes in all your efforts to provide truth to those who are vulnerable to the misinformation so often found in medical news reports.”
Thanks to The National Institute for Health Care Management Foundation for providing us with a grant to produce these podcasts.
Credit: podcast editor Cristeta Boarini
Music used in this episode:
Please note: if you have listened to any of our podcasts and like what you’ve heard, we’d appreciate it if you’d leave a Review and a Rating on the iTunes webpage where our podcasts can be found: https://itun.es/i6S86Qw. (You need to click on the “View in iTunes” button on the left of that page, then find the Ratings and Reviews tab.)
You can now subscribe to our podcasts on that iTunes page or via this RSS feed: http://feeds.soundcloud.com/users/soundcloud:users:167780656/sounds.rss
All episodes of our podcasts are archived on this page on HealthNewsReview.org.
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.