Talk:HealthNewsReview.org
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the HealthNewsReview.org article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Interview in Bulletin of the World Health Organization
[edit]This interview with Schwitzer is a pretty good description of what the problems are with news today and how they are trying to solve them. A lot of this content belongs in the article.
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/95/4/17-030417/en/
Campaigning for a fact-based approach to health journalism
Gary Schwitzer argues that – when it comes to reporting on health and medicine – the news media in the United States of America are often out of touch with the public they purport to serve. He talks to Fiona Fleck.
Fiona Fleck
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
2017;95:248-249.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.17.030417
a New York Times story that reported “Pregnant women may want to avoid licorice, which may affect the cognitive abilities of their children.” Some readers left comments online, calling it “bad science reporting,” reminding the paper that “association is not cause and effect,” and “correlation is not causation.” That is a sign of the wisdom of the crowds.
We have about 50 external reviewers. Three reviewers assess each article, applying our 10 criteria
Some health, medical and science journalism meets a high standard.
But the troughs between those peaks of excellence are becoming deeper and wider. For example, some news media mistakenly promote animal research and early phase I drug trials, as if the products were available at the corner drug stores. Others are claiming falsely that observational research can prove cause and effect.
--Nbauman (talk) 15:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why links to more, better, newer information about HealthNewsReview.org were deleted
[edit]You deleted a link to a page that explains in depth the rationale and process for our 3,000+ systematic reviews of health care news stories and public relations news releases.
You also deleted references/links to articles in seven peer-reviewed medical journals and one book chapter. All seven were newer than the references and links that now appear on the page. Adding these references and links wasn't self-promotion; the edits added information to a page that was outdated, incomplete, and less helpful than it could be for a general audience. Gary Schwitzer (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)