Gary Schwitzer

<p>Continued miscommunication about findings from observational studies is drawing continued criticism from a growing number of observers. Journalists: observe and learn.</p>

<p>Headlines matter. And you can’t have it both ways: one saying “reduces death” and another saying “isn’t saving lives.” Screening messages are confusing enough for the general public; journalism shouldn’t make it even harder to decipher.</p>

<p>A new analysis shows how commonly doctors don't understand cancer screening statistics. That's no excuse for journalists not to do a better job in learning the basics and educating their readers, viewers, and listeners.</p>

<p>The Health News Watchdog analyzes 6 stories on 2 studies in the New England Journal of Medicine. Learn from the variation and from what was missing in most of the 6.</p>

Like our HealthNewsReview.org project, this Canadian project offers a list of industry-independent experts - and more.

<p>Some things to think about before we promote celebrity health care stories. Think about the uninsured in the audience. Are they supposed to pray for a miracle when they see this?</p>

<p>Because, in a nutshell, we find them all the same way – online.&nbsp; We don’t get ink on our fingers by reading a dozen or more newspapers every day.&nbsp; We – like an increasing number of people around the world – get our news online where blogs look just like stories from the newspaper, where business of health stories pop up just as consumer health stories pop up, where no caveats or mastheads appear saying:</p>

<p>Kudos to reporter Kirsten Stewart of the <em>Salt Lake Tribune</em> for showing how to avoid local boosterism – so often seen when the local health care industry makes an announcement.&nbsp;</p>

<p>In just 5 days, we've blogged about 3 distinct media ethics issues - all potential threats to a well-informed public discussion on health care and health care policy.</p>

<p>If anything, the FCC proposal may not go far enough.</p>