Some Thoughts on Health Care Journalism

One of my favorite duties as Scientific Editor is that I get to write press releases on articles that I find interesting. I think I really enjoy this for two reasons - 1) I get to create something rather than just edit someone else's work and 2) it's kind of cool to interact with the press.

I was reading this NEJM article on the pitfalls of health care journalism, and this topic kind of hit home. I'm going to preface this by saying that I'm not a journalist, and I have no obligation to be objective. My supposed goal is to sensationalize our author's findings as much as possible and let the actual journalist do the diligence to actually put the findings in perspective. (Is this new treatment REALLY going to cure tuberculosis - probably not.)

My understanding is that journalists have some sort of code (again, note my ignorance), similar to the Hippocratic oath, where they must be objective and not over-sensationalize stories. And yet when I follow up (yay google) on the articles written on my PR - they're usually just basic rehashing (or cut-and-paste) of my press release. I like to think of myself as an ethical individual, so when I noticed this I started toning down my releases, presenting a more balanced perspective. I would be willing to bet that most public information officers wouldn't even consider this option.

On to my point. After I issue a release, for example of muscular dystrophy, I get contacted by not only journalists but by patients and family members with the disorder, desparate for new therapies. The problem is that any therapy based on my basic sciences releases is at least five years away (I'm being very optimistic here). Which leads to the conundrum. I feel responsible for falsely raising these people's hopes, but at the same time science needs to be in the news so the general population can actually understand how important it is. People need to be more aware of the directions (and benefits) of past and current research. It always amazing me how everyone will buy an iPhone but no one actually knows how it works. No wonder the US is being left behind in technology development.

Anyway, I got a bit off topic and started rambling (no surprise there). The question is - how can you balance the benefits of health care/science journalism to society with the sometimes personal detriments patients? I'm going to have to think about this a lot more - but let me know what you think.