I have been critical in the past with the health reporting in some major media publications.
The NEJM has a nice perspective piece (via Gary Schwitzer) on the issue from Susan Dentzer, editor-in-chief of Health Affairs. In today’s 24/7 news cycle, health stories provide ample opportunities for “gotcha” headlines. Nothing captures the public’s attention like reporting a drug scare, a botched surgery, or hyping the latest miracle drug or procedure.
The problem is, there’s a possibility that both doctors and patients may act based on what they read and hear, and although journalists “are not clinicians, but [they] must be more than carnival barkers; [they] must be credible health communicators more interested in conveying clear, actionable health information to the public than carrying out [their] other agendas.”
The nuance inherent in medical stories can be difficult to report, and are not huge ratings grabbers. The best medical stories always present multiple facets of a health issue, and one-sided medical stories meant to shock and awe should be approached with caution.
Related posts:
- Mainstream media health blogs held to a higher journalistic standard
- Should physician blogs be held to a higher standard?
- Are physician-patients held to a higher standard?
- Medical bloggers are held to a double standard
- Are drug companies trying to influence health journalists?
- Teaching hospitals = higher quality care?
- Journalists: On Pharma’s payroll?
{ 2 comments }
Susan Dentzer makes some good points, but still states, Almost no drug on the market is without risk. Even a placebo has side effects, so do water and oxygen. Even this statement suggests to people, that there is the possibility of a completely safe treatment. One of the most important things to communicate to the public is that safety is a matter of relative risks.
Dr. Wolfe (of Public Citizen)does a similarly bad job of creating expectations of perfectly predictable drugs. this will never happen. He also does not seem to understand that the older drugs, with better understood side effect profiles, may have serious side effects. The known side effect is one that we are able to observe for much more carefully, because we know what to expect. The newer drugs may have unpredictable side effects, that did not show up in other drugs in the same family. This unknown risk of unknown side effects is hard to monitor carefully.
A drug like clozapine has 5 different black box warnings. It’s side effect profile is well documented. There should be no surprises in using this drug. A new antipsychotic is far less predictable. That unpredictability is what is dangerous. How do we communicate this kind of information to the public? When COX 2 inhibitors are determined to be at fault in a heart attack of an individual, even though there is no way to tell, how do we communicate that?
There are many problems with the ability of journalists to communicate, but doctors often do not do a good job of informing themselves about these risks.
We have a poor understanding of science. Doctors should be the communicators explaining this to the public. In stead we get Jenny McCarthy scaring people away from vaccines with nonsense claims, homeopaths selling inactive substances as active, people claiming AIDS does not come from HIV infection and discouraging treatment with anti-retroviral drugs, . . . all sorts of feel good treatments that have no research to support them. Not only is there no research to support them, but all of the research clearly shows that these treatments are dangerous. We need to have a tremendous improvement in the education system or our current financial problems will be nothing compared to our problems in dealing with disease.
That’s what I am hoping to change…I’m graduating with a journalism degree and pursuing nursing with the eventual goal of publishing. I won’t be a doctor, but at least I’ll have a better grasp of medical concepts and terminology than the average reporter.
Comments on this entry are closed.