Drs. Alderighi and Rasoini are back with some tips for budding health journalists. Their short essay helps everyone learn key tips and tricks of reading observational studies
Thank you for some very sensible advice to health journalists and the general public! Now let us have a guest post from a journalist with experience reporting health issues for the mainstream media, responding as to why your principles are often not followed. Their response might be equally enlightening for physicians, medical researchers, and the general public.
It's one of the saddest aspects of the CoVid response. I had a friend who offered a study claiming that it proves the effectiveness of things like vaccine and mask mandates. But when I did a deep dive into the problems with the study's conclusions, they insisted that I was just believing in conspiracy theories.
How about an advice of actually TELLING THE TRUTH??? Why not pointing to studies which clearly distinguish covid injected from non-injected individuals, in order to at least try to uncouple, toxic injections from other factors, like shedding, environmental issues??? Every single study, mixing ALL POPULATION today, printed by 'Nature', which is pushing the covid narrative, is these days mildly speaking 'mis-information', and in the old days it would be described as LIES!!!
With one informative essay, you provide guidance to reporters and, at the same time, to their readership.
The general public is in dire need of this sort of guidance. Those consuming medical research journalism, must learn to "mentally edit out" appeals to emotion and ask intelligent questions.
Without that critical feedback loop, journalistic rigor devolves into a form of intellectual rigor mortis.
This is such a valuable article. It’s great that journalists’ presentation is being highlighted. Their writings about new research and studies can be as skewed or even more skewed than what a study or the facts actually represent. This has been very apparent at the NYT even *well before* COVID. I’m thinking of a specific high profile research area but won’t mention what it is. The fear mongering was/is rampant in that field and the NYT (along with fellow media who simply fell into lockstep with them) basically fed fear -- which in turn helped bring in millions and millions of dollars to the institution leading the research whether through grants or donations. But don’t try to logically or rationally present another viewpoint or you were called a denier or a “flat earther” or any other kind of slur in an attempt to discredit your position.
This is one of the best posts put out by sensible medicine. It addresses what I refer to as the informed consent void. During this pandemic the vast majority of people have gotten their information and based decisions on what they have read or heard in the MSM. When journalists misinterpret, over interpret or under interpret a study that information influences readers. That includes overemphasis of public health messaging that is not based upon data. An example of this is the vaccination campaign, that was moved out of the offices of doctors, essentially excluding them from the informed consent processes by establishing mass vaccination centers. That left the public to seek information on their own from MSM sources as well as some others. The accuracy or inaccuracies of these sources took the place of professional informed consent. What we see now is the result of a narrative of politicized and inaccurate informed consent.
Journalists play an important role in our society but to do that they must be accurate. Thank you for this. I wonder if a journalist will contact you for a statement...
Halle-freaking-lujiah! The way health journalists have spun things throughout Covid have been soooo bad and is a large portion of the reason the US is so divided on the issue.
I might also add, if you can’t read the raw data with some level of confidence and are only doing the med school trick of reading the intro and conclusions of a paper, you probably need to try again. Data matter.
All very good points here but "include alternate viewpoints" stands out on its own. By including an alternate viewpoint you are likely to quote someone who will, themselves, mention the most salient of the other caveats that apply to this particular study. I have been shocked in the last few years how many articles don't quote a single dissenting voice. Isn't that a failure of basic journalism?
In the current climate and recent history of basement piss-poor journalism, however, one is forced to wonder if any reporters will seriously reflect on this. They absolutely should. But will they?
Thank you for some very sensible advice to health journalists and the general public! Now let us have a guest post from a journalist with experience reporting health issues for the mainstream media, responding as to why your principles are often not followed. Their response might be equally enlightening for physicians, medical researchers, and the general public.
Many many thanks love this will share widely. We need more Walter Cronkite's, Mike Wallace and Bill Moyers
It's one of the saddest aspects of the CoVid response. I had a friend who offered a study claiming that it proves the effectiveness of things like vaccine and mask mandates. But when I did a deep dive into the problems with the study's conclusions, they insisted that I was just believing in conspiracy theories.
Dear Doctors,
How about an advice of actually TELLING THE TRUTH??? Why not pointing to studies which clearly distinguish covid injected from non-injected individuals, in order to at least try to uncouple, toxic injections from other factors, like shedding, environmental issues??? Every single study, mixing ALL POPULATION today, printed by 'Nature', which is pushing the covid narrative, is these days mildly speaking 'mis-information', and in the old days it would be described as LIES!!!
If only they would listen. But https://swprs.org/the-american-empire-and-its-media/
Many thanks for this article, Doctors.
With one informative essay, you provide guidance to reporters and, at the same time, to their readership.
The general public is in dire need of this sort of guidance. Those consuming medical research journalism, must learn to "mentally edit out" appeals to emotion and ask intelligent questions.
Without that critical feedback loop, journalistic rigor devolves into a form of intellectual rigor mortis.
This is such a valuable article. It’s great that journalists’ presentation is being highlighted. Their writings about new research and studies can be as skewed or even more skewed than what a study or the facts actually represent. This has been very apparent at the NYT even *well before* COVID. I’m thinking of a specific high profile research area but won’t mention what it is. The fear mongering was/is rampant in that field and the NYT (along with fellow media who simply fell into lockstep with them) basically fed fear -- which in turn helped bring in millions and millions of dollars to the institution leading the research whether through grants or donations. But don’t try to logically or rationally present another viewpoint or you were called a denier or a “flat earther” or any other kind of slur in an attempt to discredit your position.
Ironically (and it just came to me) the field I am referring to also has to do with neuroscience/neurological sequela of disease.
This is super! Thank you.
This is one of the best posts put out by sensible medicine. It addresses what I refer to as the informed consent void. During this pandemic the vast majority of people have gotten their information and based decisions on what they have read or heard in the MSM. When journalists misinterpret, over interpret or under interpret a study that information influences readers. That includes overemphasis of public health messaging that is not based upon data. An example of this is the vaccination campaign, that was moved out of the offices of doctors, essentially excluding them from the informed consent processes by establishing mass vaccination centers. That left the public to seek information on their own from MSM sources as well as some others. The accuracy or inaccuracies of these sources took the place of professional informed consent. What we see now is the result of a narrative of politicized and inaccurate informed consent.
Journalists play an important role in our society but to do that they must be accurate. Thank you for this. I wonder if a journalist will contact you for a statement...
Halle-freaking-lujiah! The way health journalists have spun things throughout Covid have been soooo bad and is a large portion of the reason the US is so divided on the issue.
I might also add, if you can’t read the raw data with some level of confidence and are only doing the med school trick of reading the intro and conclusions of a paper, you probably need to try again. Data matter.
All very good points here but "include alternate viewpoints" stands out on its own. By including an alternate viewpoint you are likely to quote someone who will, themselves, mention the most salient of the other caveats that apply to this particular study. I have been shocked in the last few years how many articles don't quote a single dissenting voice. Isn't that a failure of basic journalism?
Excellent advice!
In the current climate and recent history of basement piss-poor journalism, however, one is forced to wonder if any reporters will seriously reflect on this. They absolutely should. But will they?