COVID-19: Perfect Storm of Politics, PR, Polluted Messages to the Public - Shared screen with speaker view
Who can see your viewing activity?
Gary is being far too humble. His work at CNN and beyond has always been top-notch and his leadership in trying to advance critical thinking in health news coverage exemplary. I know this first-hand from having admired his work for more than 30 years.That aside, Gary, I wonder if you'd like to comment on whether even enhanced critical thinking and appropriate skepticism in covering COVID is enough given how highly politicized this topic has become. Indeed, the FDA and CDC's standing have been compromised as a result, at least at a leadership level.For example, Jay Rosen at NYU Has argued for newsrooms to take an "emergency" approach to covering the Trump administration, going well beyond the traditional "balanced" approach that leads with a "news" peg (often a provocative statement or supposed new development" with "balancing" comment and context, if there is any, later on. His model is the "truth sandwich" -- state the facts/truth, then note the "news," then return to the facts/truth.
Multiple COVID 19 vaccines are being developed with incredible potential financial earnings for vaccine manufacturers. How do we as public health and media members address these likely phenomena -1) the limited efficacy of COVID vaccines, 2)vaccine companies who manipulate scientific information to promote their products and 3) the anti-vaxxer movement looking for reasons to not vaccinate.
The language itself conveys certainty, for example, the term “prevention drugs” is used universally when it is more accurately stated: “this drug MAY result in a small reduction of risk”. Can we stop using the “prevention” language?
Esther Priscilla Ebuehi
Excellent idea and also in addition to journals, you could work with digital health news sites like Medscape and HealthLine. Or organize medical experts to respond quickly.
Healthline is unreliable, and Medscape is paywalled.
Go Gary! LOL. Drug companies have internal review processes to check the accuracy of marketing content. The problem is use of selective evidence.
Medscape used to be open access with registration. They might now only be allowing certified health professionals behind the "paywall," but I'm not sure.
Full disclosure: I used to be the Executive Editor
I have written to Healthline about their misinformation and never received a response. They mislead by claiming their articles are medically reviewed.
WebMD was originally a founded by Eli Lilly
In fact I went through Healthline and cited 15 articles with inaccurate information.
The question - does the correction information go mainstream or is it only disseminated to educated and affluent readers who read newspapers like the NYT
there are several challenges. The first is the medical academic marginalization induced by a drastic reduction in R&D funding. The second problem relates to the systemic unethical behavior of pharmaceutical companies (information laundering, fraud, ghostwriting, conflicts of interest and scientific corruption which is a corruption of standards, which is serious. The third problem is the weakening of Health authorities The fourth problem is the generalized tweedism which every day weakens health democracy even more through the harmful effects of lobbying.
thank you so much Gary
Thanks so much! (PhD student from IU)