Our one criticism is for the headline writer, who had to frame it as “hope for a future AIDS cure” despite these caveats in the body of the story:
A competing MedPage Today story had this headline: “HIV-Resistant T Cells on Horizon.” That story said that the researchers “cautioned reporters not to use the word “cure” at this early stage.
But this AP story still used the word “cure” 12 times.
It is possible to report on very preliminary research – even involving only six people – and even on a topic like HIV/AIDS – and to do so in a reasonable way. This story achieved that goal – despite the repeated use of “cure”.
We like this story’s approach. The story could have easily stated that it’s just too early to know – end of story. Instead, it stated:
The story gave very specific details on what happened to trial subjects’ cell counts – and over what span of time. Of course it’s too soon to know if those lab results will translate into differences in the peoples’ lives.
But a MedPage Today story carried a more significant statement from a member of the conference program committee: “We do not know yet from the experiments whether there is any antiviral activity.”
Good job in saying: “The only side effect was two days of flulike symptoms. It will take longer to determine safety”
Lots of details on what the evidence showed.
Many caveats included.
There could have been some more, though. A MedPageToday story stated “all six patients involved in the study had well-controlled HIV, so it was impossible to see if there would be a therapeutic effect.” That same story also noted that another presentation at the same meeting gave results of a similar process in mouse research – but the protective effect wore off over time. This AP story could have included that same information to be more complete.
The story also could have included a reminder that the research was published only as a short abstract and presented at a scientific conference – and that it had not undergone the kind of rigorous peer review that a journal article would be expected to undergo.
Several independent sources were quoted.
Within the realm of other gene therapy attempts, the story explained, “This is the first time researchers have permanently deleted a human gene and infused the altered cells back into patients. Other gene therapy attempts tried to add a gene or muffle the activity of one, and have not worked against HIV”
The story made it clear that this was a very preliminary report.
The story explained this was the first test of the new approach and that a report on a second, federally-funded study was due in another day.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Don’t believe everything you hear, kids.
“What in the world justifies rushing a 348-word story to publication on a Sunday without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? COVID-19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous.”
🔥👇 https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1268175065478320131
.@Reuters: why rush to publish a 348-word story claiming #COVID19 is losing potency without doing extra research and reporting? Just because a scientist said it? #COVID19 journalism that devolves to that level of dreck is dangerous. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/06/reuters-report-is-another-classic-case-study-in-how-not-to-cover-covid-19-news/
For some time our website has been subjected to malicious hacker attacks from several countries. So many that we were forced to block entry. We revisit the severity of attack regularly. When it eases, we will lift the blockade. Thanks for your understanding.
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