What basics are wrong? The on-air and online stories still used terms like "benefit" and "lowers risk" – sometimes with the qualifier "may cut risk" which still doesn’t cover up the inaccuracy of using causal language to explain results that can’t prove cause-and-effect.
Some of the online comments on the CNN website provide a glimpse of how readers react to such stories:
Not applicable – the cost of coffee is not in question.
The online and on-air stories still used inappropriate causal language – as the WebMD story did – in describing the results of a study that can’t establish cause-and-effect.
The online story said "may cut risk" and "may lower the risk." Adding the qualifying "may" doesn’t detract from the inappropriate causal verb that follows.
The on-air story used the term "benefit" when benefit can not be established in this kind of study.
Inappropriate. Inaccurate.
At least this story did what the WebMD story didn’t do in discussing some of the potential harms from drinking a lot of coffee.
At least the story commented briefly on the nature of the study: "They looked at nine existing studies and analyzed how much coffee was consumed by more than 5,000 cancer patients and about 9,000 healthy people."
But it never stated explicitly that this kind of study CAN NOT establish cause and effect. That’s still a major shortcoming of such stories. It only takes a line to do so, and we’ve provided some sample lines in a primer on this topic elsewhere on our site.
One of the researchers and two independent sources were interviewed – something WebMD didn’t do.
The story didn’t comment – as the WebMD story did – on other factors analyzed in the study such as tea, fruits and vegetables.
Not applicable – the availability of coffee is not in question.
The story at least briefly mentions other coffee research: "Other recent studies suggest coffee may have beneficial effects in other diseases like dementia, diabetes, liver and Parkinson’s disease. However, coffee alone may not be the answer according to some experts."
Because of the number of sources cited, it’s clear this did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A great read on this weekend’s NYT claims of a cure for Type 1.
Cure for Type 1 diabetes? We’ve been down this road before with NY Times https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/11/cure-for-type-1-diabetes-weve-been-down-this-road-before-with-ny-times/
"But it is the framing and the emphasis of the #journalism by a leading science journalist at a leading newspaper that demands scrutiny. It has an impact on readers and on sick people that may cause harm by promoting false hope about extremely preliminary research"
👍👏💪 truth https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
Why we should still miss healthnewsreview. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1465399358137024518
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