"Morning Glory" starring Rachel McAdams, Diane Keaton, and Harrison Ford is a wonderfully funny movie about the behind the scenes challenges in broadcast news. McAdams plays Becky Fuller, an executive producer charged with revitalizing a failing morning news program. The painfully accurate reality depicted in the movie is that news outlets live and die by their ratings so that we, the viewers, can get the news for free.
So who pays for it? Broadcast, print and web news media is supported by advertising revenue, and the basic business model is straightforward:
* News attracts viewers.
* Number of viewers is monetized.
* News outlet sells advertising space/time to marketers.
* The more viewers there are, the more a media outlet can charge for an ad.
The bottom line is that Viewers = Revenue.
Retaining viewers/readers ultimately requires that media outlets deliver information that is timely, accurate, well-balanced, and engaging. However, attracting them requires that outlets successfully break through the morass of news noise. How do they do that? By grabbing our attention with clever, dramatic headlines and teasing viewers/readers with lead-ins and headlines that are unexpected, outlandish, and extreme. It is a bait and hook strategy that works.
Here’s the problem: Too often, we don’t have the time to read or listen to an entire news clip or article. We merely rely on the headline and, subsequently, we become misinformed. And, when there is misinformation about health-related issues, this can lead to poor outcomes, higher cost, and, very commonly, patient confusion, frustration and disappointment.
Here a few examples:
Headline: "Study Pins Alcohol as More Dangerous Than Crack or Heroin"
Facts: This Lancet-published study evaluated 20 different drugs including cocaine, heroin, ecstasy and marijuana. Each was ranked on three dimensions: physical harm to the individual user, addiction potential, and the societal effect of the substance. The study clearly showed that an individual level, cocaine and heroine are most harmful. But, since alcohol abuse is so prevalent in the population, its high societal impact score inflated the overall score above that of all the other substances. Hence, the headline.
By the way, the author of the article is Professor David Nutt, a former U.K. drug czar who is using the study to argue that the regulatory classification of substances should use an evidence-based rather than a historical approach rather. This was a political article in drag.
The vast majority of online outlets including ABC, CBS, and FOX, had a headline similar to the one in Time, but kudos to The Boston Herald for their responsible but still eye-catching headline: "Dangers of Abuse Sobering."
Headline: "Botox a Cure for Migraines?"
For the 3.2 million people who suffer with migraine headaches, this headline created a groundswell of hope.
Facts: In this study, Botox for migraines was only tested in patients with 15 or more days of headaches per month. There was no difference in the number of headaches, but treated patients had 1.4 fewer headache days per month. For effectiveness, each quarterly treatment session requires 31 injections of Botox, and the annual cost is about $4,000 per year. Individuals with chronic migraines may get some relief with Botox but it is certainly not a silver bullet or a “cure for migraines.” While Botox can be used off-label for those with less frequent migraines, it has not been studied and it is unlikely to be covered by insurance.
Oh, by the way….the new migraine indication for Botox is estimated to add $1 billion to Allergan's top line within five years.
Headline: "New 'Vaccine' for Prostate Cancer"
When I mentioned this headline to David (my gastroenterologist husband) he said, "I want it," until he heard the facts.
Facts: The Provenge "vaccine" is not preventive at all. This medication is only for men with late stage, metastatic, hormone-refractory prostate cancer. Even for them, its not a cure. The drug extended survival an average of 4.5 months (from 22 to 26 months) and costs $93,000.
So, why is Provenge called a vaccine? It’s a technicality. Each "vaccine" is custom-manufactured using the patients own cells. The infusion does not directly attack the cancer; rather, it triggers an immune response against the tumor cells just like the flu "vaccine" triggers an immune response against the virus. Clever, huh?
And, finally, one of the biggest media/government headline blunders of the decade.
To read the rest of this post, go to http://archelleonhealth.blogspot.com/2010/11/health-news-tips-for-avoiding-sound.html