Three best practices on reporting on research were violated in this story:
This is the kind of science story that helps science and journalism fall out of favor with the public. These chocolate and Valentine’s Day stories are predictable on the calendar – and predictable in content and delivery. If the science behind it were more fully explained, it would be sweet. This wasn’t.
The cost of chocolate is not in question.
Used only relative risk reduction, not absolute. We have a primer on this as well. So when it talked about 22% lower stroke rate or a 46% lower stroke death rate, we’re not told 22% of what? Or 46% of what?
Later there’s mention of chocolate helping to reduce blood pressure or increase blood flow but no data are provided.
The story did discuss the possible harms of higher LDL cholesterol "or perhaps higher incidence of cardiovascular disease" from chocolate. But it didn’t provide any evidence. Nonethless we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt.
This story swings wildly back and forth, saying dark chocolate may lower stroke risk but then saying the findings aren’t conclusive. It said that the findings don’t prove that chocolate is good for your heart (heart? The headline and lede said this was about stroke!). And then it confusingly dropped in the researcher’s quote, "I’d definitely go with the dark chocolate" over white or mik chocolate. For what? Taste? Or for benefit? And if so based on what data?
What the story didn’t explain is why using any language about lowering stroke risk is inappropriate, since such an observational study can’t prove cause-and-effect. We’ve just added a new guide for journalists about why the language of association versus causation is so important.
The story didn’t tell us anything about stroke, so it couldn’t commit disease-mongering.
A dietitian and a nutrition researcher – both apparently unaffiliated with the research – were quoted.
No explanation was given for the researcher’s recommendation of dark chocolate over milk or white chocolate, and no reasons were given for why "dark chocolate in particular" – as the story states – may have health benefits.
The availability of chocolate is not in question.
The story explained this study was a review of existing studies.
Since several sources were quoted, it does not appear that the story relied solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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