Perhaps if we had not compared the CNN.com story with the LA Times piece, our comments might be more glowing. It covered a lot of the bases – addressing most of our criteria.
But the Times story was framed completely differently, delivering healthy skepticism where it appears to be warranted.
This story delivered a key summary line from an independent expert: “”This might be a good tool in the short term to get someone motivated, and that’s great. But unless it’s paired with aggressive lifestyle changes, it may not be great in the long term.”
Not applicable. The story didn’t discuss cost, but the story was clear that is a drug that has been slowed in its path to marketing approval so that is understandable.
The story adequately reported on the potential benefits. It just didn’t provide the context we applauded in the LA Times story. But it did state:
This story – while not quantifying harms – did a better job in discussing harms than the LA Times story, so we’ll give it a satisfactory score. It reported:
You have to read the LA Times’ story in order to see how much better a job it did than this CNN.com story in evaluating the evidence. The Times stated:
By comparison, CNN.com called it “significant promise” and “a new report.” We think the Times’ analysis was far more helpful for readers.
The story turned to “Dr. Melina Jampolis, CNNHealth’s physician nutrition expert, who is not connected with the study.” We wish the story had given us some background on her expertise.
It also stated that “The study was funded by the pharmaceutical company Vivus.”
Adequate. The story stated:
The story stated that Qnexa was not approved: “The Food and Drug Administration denied the request, asking for more safety data from the company before moving forward.”
Again, in comparison with the LA Times’ reporting, we must give the CNN.com story an unsatisfactory score because of how it treated as “new” something that really wasn’t.
The story did not rely solely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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