The story made strong, clear attempts to report in a restrained manner, using terms/phrases such as:
Stories about cancer – perhaps especially melanoma because of its treatment challenges – should balance promise with realistic context. This story did a better job of that than the competitors’ efforts we reviewed.
The significant costs of both drugs were mentioned. Nice job.
Good job describing the benefits reported in the two drug studies. The two papers present a bewildering array of statistics. This story did a nice job distilling the information into a couple of very understandable sentences.
Good job explaining signifcant potential harms of both drugs – something competitors didn’t do at all.
Nice job, including linking (in the online version) to the papers in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Several independent sources cited.
The story adequately explained the comparisons between both new drugs and the older dacarbazine chemo drug.
Vemurafenib was described as experimental and as “expected to be approved by the FDA within a few months.” Ipilimumab was explained to be approved in March and already on the market.
The relative novelty of both drugs was well explained.
It’s clear that the story did not rely on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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