Does the media accurately report medical news?
According to a poll from the ACP Internist, most respondents don’t think so. Some of the problems come from the academic medical center PR departments, which either “overstate results or don’t include important caveats when pitching study results to the media.” Often times, these press releases make their way into the media and disseminated to patients.
In today’s competitive environment where newspapers and television news fight for an audience with shorter attention spans, it’s difficult to spend the time to present a balance portrayal of new studies or findings.
As one poll respondent accurately notes, “Patients don’t get the language of ‘may be’ that is usually reported in the media.”
I highly recommend reading University of Minnesota journalism professor Gary Schwitzer, who along with his team, do an excellent job dissecting various media reports on medical news.
Related posts:
- Medical studies in the media
- How will the media influence health reform?
- Hospitals are using social media, like Twitter, Facebook, and blogs, for advertising to patients
- Poll: Is easy patient access to the medical record a good idea?
- Poll: Is Twitter necessary for physicians and other medical professionals?
- Patients still trust their doctors, and how that can influence health reform
- Poll: Do gifts from pharmaceutical companies influence how physicians prescribe?
{ 4 comments }
Kevin,
Thanks for the plug. You linked to my blog, which is not where we systematically dissect health news coverage. For that you need to go to http://www.HealthNewsReview.org.
Gary Schwitzer
Publisher
HealthNewsReview.org
Thanks. Changed the link.
Kevin
Sometimes the reporting from The Onion is more accurate.
Those who design and create releases for the press, which is the print media, are designed to contain information of sufficient importance or interest to the public, historically speaking. This is what U.S. citizens are led to believe about what we may read.
Instead, those who design and release written information to the press are often sponsors of the print media who will issue the press release.
Such sponsors often instruct such media outlets with mandated authoritarian nuances such as the press release that they created will not be altered in any way by the print media that agrees to release the press created by the sponsor of the media outlet.
Of course, the sponsor and creator of such a press release create such written words in order to promote the sponsor’s company, as well as its products. By doing so, they are allowed the freedom to embellish if not fabricate what may be annotated on the release they issue to the press that has now been bought by them, the corporate sponsor.
These well- constructed statements are meticulously composed and customized before they are issued to targeted editors and contacts at mass media publication locations.
The sponsor also has been known to direct the location and time of the release of their press creation that, upon direction from the sponsor, is completely un-reviewed by such a media source.
As this is done, the mass media outlets are again instructed on how to present their completed statements by who are often corporate sponsors. Furthermore, the media is given instructions once more that what has been written by their sponsor shall remain as it exists.
As a result of this collusion, press releases are presently a form of public relations often utilized for those companies who create what is supposed to be an attempt to express their products as being newsworthy to the readers.
Press releases, historically, have been created and released to inform the readers by adding insight and related information for them regarding a particular topic that was typically complete and balanced. At least, that was the intent.
Today, they seem to be more or less an annotative commercial with press compositions generated by corporations in particular, so it seems.
Unfortunately, and presently, press releases are often embellished, biased, and incomplete with deliberate intent in order to benefit the creator of these documents, who again develop them solely to increase awareness and usage of their products that they promote with their business, which they want to be viewed as favorable and with a positive image to the public.
One could suggest that the mass media who receives these press statements from certain corporations are transformed into acute front groups who perhaps coercively offer third party legitimacy for the content of the press release as they release this information to their readers.
The often notable if not intentional, flaws at times are numerous within such press releases that reflect reckless disregard with informing readers in such a way, who are the American public. Citizens typically believe that what they are reading from a respected media source is both honest and complete.
An example is an anonymous press release posted on the Medical News Today website (www.medicalnewstoday.com) that is dated in March of 2006. The title: “Cymbalta Safely and Effectively Treats core anxiety symptoms associated with generalized anxiety disorder.”
Cymbalta, by the way, is a psychoactive drug often utilized for human affective disorders.
Clearly, this title itself includes words associated with relief or elation, which are subjective and not objective elements which would clearly be more appropriate- with a health care press release in particular.
The first paragraph of this press release repeats the results mentioned in the title of this article, but also states Cymbalta offers relief of painful symptoms associated with anxiety, as well as improved functional impairment- also claimed to be associated with anxiety in this press release.
These conclusions are speculative at best, as these inferences appear to be unexamined by others regarding the benefits claimed to exist with Cymbalta as illustrated in this press release.
Cymbalta was not approved by the FDA for anxiety or any of the symptoms associated with this condition at the time of this press release. In fact, Cymbalta was not filed with the FDA for this speculated new indication for anxiety that was desired by Eli Lilly until May of 2006.
By definition, this press release may possibly be off-label promotion as well as misbranding of Cymbalta that was performed overtly in this manner of the press release, one may speculate.
As one continues to read this press release, testimonials were intentionally created and inserted into this press release that illustrated results they hope are impactful to the reader regarding Cymbalta.
This testimonial was from the lead author, who expanded the claims made initially with utilizing various medical terms, which was followed by this person’s passionate optimism about the great potential of Cymbalta based on this remarkable study.
This study, by the way, was to be addressed in further detail at a National Anxiety meeting some weeks after this press release was announced to the public on this website.
The second testimonial was Eli Lilly’s Medical Advisor expressing his elation about what the lead author just stated, followed by how much he was encouraged by these results that will benefit so many others that have these debilitating medical conditions.
Of course, profit forecasts and desired market growth and expansion regarding Cymbalta remarkably were not stated in this press release.
What is not included in this particular press release were any clear statements regarding the disadvantages and adverse if not toxic events associated those who take Cymbalta.
Reactions from Cymbalta users include discontinuation syndrome at times, when the user stops taking this medication, which I understand can be quite devastating for the one experiencing this syndrome.
Furthermore acts of suicide and suicidal ideation have been frequently associated with those who take Cymbalta as well. There has been a lack of efficacy suggestions by others who have taken Cymbalta.
Basically, anything that may be considered negative aspects about this drug were not annotated in this particular press release as it should have been for fair balance that is or should be a primary standard in the pharmaceutical industry and the professions involving journalism.
Acquired from Wikipedia:
According to The Elements of Journalism, a book by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, there are nine elements of journalism [1]. In order for a journalist to fulfill their duty of providing the people with the information they need to be free and self-governing. They must follow these guidelines:
1. Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.
2. Its first loyalty is to the citizens.
3. Its essence is discipline of verification.
4. Its practitioners must maintain an independence from those they cover.
5. It must serve as an independent monitor of power.
6. It must provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.
7. It must strive to make the significant interesting, and relevant.
8. It must keep the news comprehensive and proportional.
9. Its practitioners must be allowed to exercise their personal conscience.
In the April 2007 edition of the book [2], they have added one additional element, the rights and responsibilities of citizens to make it a total of ten elements of journalism.
The staff involved with the release and publication of such press releases as this one was annotated and described should perhaps be more informed on what not to accept and what to present regarding these issues addressed. Then they may meet the requirements and obligations of what they provide the people.
As with any reporting by the media, objectivity and thorough completeness of the topic discussed in a press release is a necessary requirement with any publishing that is potentially exposed to so many other readers- with issues related to the restoration of their health in particular:
“The public has a lot at stake, and the media has a responsibility always to be aware of the source of information and the conflicts those sources might have when they report the results of clinical research. People who have financial stake in the results of clinical research can well be biased in the way research is conducted, in the way they report it, and what they say about it when interviewed by the media.”
– Arnold Relman, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine
Dan Abshear
Comments on this entry are closed.