Comments on: Bad Medical Journalism

By: Science-Based Medicine » The Media and “CAM”

Science-Based Medicine » The Media and “CAM” — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 13:00:35 +0000

[...] A recent study conducted by the Health News Review, a website that routinely ranks media reporting of medical news, found that: In our evaluation of 500 US health news stories over 22 months, between 62%–77% of stories failed to adequately address costs, harms, benefits, the quality of the evidence, and the existence of other options when covering health care products and procedures. [...]

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Fri, 30 May 2008 11:46:09 +0000

Yes, it is clear that “alternative options” means just that, not CAM.

By: superdave

superdave — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:50:22 +0000

I wonder if they will single out individual writers.

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Thu, 29 May 2008 23:23:46 +0000

The most irritating thing for me in health and science articles in the general press is the lack of a link back to the actual journal article. Then I have to go hunting around to find it.

If the journalist has spent the time to talk to the authors and obviously (I think?) has at least looked at the paper, to not have a link to it is not something I understand.

By: Sastra

Sastra — Thu, 29 May 2008 22:40:02 +0000

Criterion #10 Whether alternative treatment/test/product/procedure options are mentioned

You know, this can be read two different ways. I see from looking at the links (and noting your lack of reaction) that my initial interpretation was off.

By: SpeakMediaBlog

SpeakMediaBlog — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:29:35 +0000

Very interesting article! Sloppy journalism is found in all media beats lately (I haven’t been called by a fact-checker since 1999!) But, in medical and science news, it can be life-threatening!

I blogged about this from the PR perspective, with return links back to NeuroLogica.
http://www.speakmediablog.com/2008/05/blogger-traditional-media-poor.html

In fact, as you’ll see in my post, I have felt for quite a while that bloggers are going to become more associated with “old school” journalism than major market media.

Thanks for a great read!
Jennifer A. Jones (SpeakMediaBlog)

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:41:51 +0000

I think science journalism is very challenging and requires specialized knowledge. The problem appears to be primarily with generalists thinking they can tackle science news stories when they can’t (or being forced to by editors). Sometimes science news stories are treated as fluff.

One classic mistake that I find very common is that naive reporters confuse the authority of a single scientist with the authority of the scientific community.

By: Science After Sunclipse

Science After Sunclipse — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:30:07 +0000

Medical Journalism is Ill…

Gary Schwitzer asks,
Is the news media doing a good job of reporting on new treatments, tests, products, and procedures? Ray Moynihan and colleagues analyzed how often news stories quantified the costs, benefits, and harms of the interventions being di…

By: Blake Stacey

Blake Stacey — Thu, 29 May 2008 18:15:19 +0000

Now, we just need to find somebody who’s willing to pay for a similar survey about non-medical science journalism!

By: Blair T

Blair T — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:46:26 +0000

Steve,

I wonder if you think that science and medicine reporting is different from reporting of other news stories. Is it that medical news stories are treated differently than other news, or that they require more care in reporting than other news?

As an aside – I have found that the Economist magazine has the most consistently good reporting around. Highly recommended.