Building a bit off the "conflusion" (Bravo, btw, insert) post from yesterday, I'm going to launch right into something near and dear to my heart: The way biased and badly done health journalism can really mess up the people who read it.
Biased and badly done are two very different things. I don't have data on this, but I think it's fair to say that, when the main-stream media (which, BoingBoing aside, includes me) gets a health story wrong, it usually isn't trying to be intentionally wack. Trouble is, whatever the intent, it leaves you--the reader--in the same place. Conflused.
Luckily, there are people working to help you. Like, for instance, the good folks at Behind the Headlines, a project of the British National Health System that does Q&A, myth busting and in-depth explanations on the science behind top health news. I first found out about this from Ben Goldacre's Bad Science blog, which is, in itself, a great site everybody ought to be reading.
Dr. Alicia White, one of the aforementioned "folks" behind Behind the Headlines, has a wonderful primer on the questions you should be asking yourself every time you read health news. Until we police ourselves into doing a consistently better job, sorting the wheat from the chaff is (unfortunately) up to you. This will help. Plus, it's a fun read:
If you've just read a health-related headline that's caused you to spit out your morning coffee ("Coffee causes cancer" usually does the trick) it's always best to follow the Blitz slogan: "Keep Calm and Carry On". On reading further you'll often find the headline has left out something important, like "Injecting five rats with really highly concentrated coffee solution caused some changes in cells that might lead to tumours eventually. (Study funded by The Association of Tea Marketing)".
RSS Feed
I follow a simple rule for most news.
If it's too good to be true or too bad to be true, it probably isn't.
All excellent points and ones that I wish more people would keep in mind. I'd also add: if horrifying headline is attached to the Daily Mail or the Sun, immediately disregard and save yourself the time.
Although, am going to be somewhat pedantic (what, on the internet? Never!) and point out that it's the National Health Service, not System.
It's National Health Service, but I'm only finding fault with that because the rest of the post is impeccable :)
healthnewsreview.org is also pretty good.
Another good rule is to occasionally read some articles about a subject that you're familiar with and judge them for (in)accuracy and (un)reliability... then guess a similar level of (in)accuracy and (un)reliability for other fields.
If you have cancer and are a rat, we've got great news for you!
Interestingly, the Japanese did a study showing showing that regular coffee several times a week, decreased the chance of pancreatic cancer. Nothing on decaf.
So it is. There will be more on that site in BoingBoing soon! ;)
ALSO: Yeah, National Health Service. I apologize for the brain fart.
Whoops, sorry. Liver in everyone and the colon in women. http://professional.cancerconsultants.com/oncology_main_news.aspx?id=34234
If you're not in Britain, there are other hidden gems that do the heavy work of rating the crap-factor of health news - and give them a star rating. In Canada: mediadoctor.ca. In Australia: mediadoctor.org.au. In the U.S.: healthnewsreview.org. And in Hong Kong: mediadoctor.hk. Saw the editors at a health conference and was relieved this group has put in a stake for accuracy and balance.
Unfortunately, it's not always that easy. That might hold true if the same person is covering both the topic you're familiar with, and everything else. But the quality of reporting (particularly for science and health) depends a lot on the reporter and their ability to understand the subject
There are definitely some publications that are generally worse than others.
But you may get a reporter who does a bad job covering widgets, but another reporter who does a good job covering doo-dads in the same publication. Or even one reporter who can't write about doo-dads to save their life, but is aces with widgets. Make sense?
"Unfortunately, it's not always that easy." True. Sadly sensationialism wins and facts lose.
Great links thanks. I was starting to treat most health news with indifference.
Feeding GM food to mice makes their stomachs change shape. Is that scaremongering nonsense?
Hopefully those sites will make a refreshing change from the usual 'this causes cancer oh wait no it cures cancer oh wait no it causes cancer' line I get fed from the media day in-day out.
I agree with sabik. Whenever I read something psychology related in the press I know how accurate it is. Usually it's some old knowledge that's been recycled and presented as a break-through. I therefore assume that subjects I know little about also have large errors and inconsistencies.
Recently I had a small article written about myself and my research (the safely of older drivers, both healthy and those with dementia) in the city's main paper. The journalist did a really good job, let me carefully construct sentences he directly quoted in text, and because the article was delayed by a few days, let me proof read it first. The result was an accurate article that said what I wanted and didn't get me in any hot water.
Dare to drink from the firehose. Find the link to the original abstract at least. Find the paper if you can.
How else would I have heard about the following news, sinisterly supressed by BIG CPAP:
Didgeridoo playing as alternative treatment for obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome: randomised controlled trial.
Puhan MA, Suarez A, Lo Cascio C, Zahn A, Heitz M, Braendli O.
BMJ. 2006 Feb 4;332(7536):266-70. Epub 2005 Dec 23.
PMID: 16377643 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Or the related study, squashed by BIG WIND:
Risk of sleep apnea in orchestra members.
Brown DL, Zahuranec DB, Majersik JJ, Wren PA, Gruis KL, Zupancic M, Lisabeth LD.
Sleep Med. 2009 Jun;10(6):657-60. Epub 2008 Nov 17.
PMID: 19014898
Wake up, Sheeples!
In the UK we also have a marvellous radio programme called More or Less (search the BBC website for it) which is all about the use and abuse of statistics in everyday life - health issues are commonly featured, but it covers other contentious subjects in a very entertaining way.
Thank you Maggie! The links you provided and tips are great!! Already being put to good use!