At the time of this writing, five unique media articles were written about the CLAIMS study, four unique press releases, and a few copies in different outlets, have been published. We have them all listed here and at the bottom of this page, which we will be updating on a continuous basis.
So, how (in our opinion) did the media do?
TL;DR: The handful of media outlets which covered CLAIMS did a pretty decent job.
1) Coverage was limited, and mostly from small outlets
No huge surprise there. CLAIMS is a bit of a niche study, albeit one designed to be the foundation of studies which are not-so-niche. It involves academia, media, and social media, but without providing a clear narrative of what we are supposed to do about it. The study caught on a bit in smaller outlets, but none of the giant mainstream ones, which is roughly what we expected to see, noting that very few research articles receive any coverage at all. The largest media outlet that covered our article is probably HealthNewsReview.org, which mostly covers and critiques news media coverage of health studies. Limited exposure is almost certainly for the best given the slightly complicated nature of our results, but it definitely limits what we can infer about how the article was covered. That being said…
2) Most outlets had a (very) slight preference for a particular narrative
As above, CLAIMS doesn’t and can’t, say that any particular party – like academia, researchers, journals, news editors, journalists, or social media sharers – more to “blame” for our result than any other. However, most of the articles had a bit of a focus on one particular party over the others. Some focused a bit more on the media side, and others a bit more on the academic side. These were typically fairly small leanings, and probably not a big deal. We did not observe anything close to extreme skew, like claiming that our study finds that academia, media, or social media are “broken” or similar.
3) Most (but not all) journalists contacted the team for quotes and pre-publication clarifications
It’s nice when we can be involved with the way that our articles are being communicated, particularly when we go through the efforts that we do to explain our study here on metacausal.com. Our approval is not required by any means, and we respect journalistic independence, but sometimes it helps. Science is complicated and easy to mistranslate. Most authors reached out to us for quotes, and of those, most gave us a copy of their article before they published it to check if we had corrections. That probably helped with accuracy.
So, all in all, pretty good job. Some more minor notes below:
4) Some sites reported (wrongly) that only RCTs can produce strong causal inference
This was a bit of an odd one, and in one case we wrote specifically to the media authors in an effort to correct this mistake (to no avail). RCTs certainly make causal inference much easier, but it isn’t the only way you can get strong causal inference. This mistake appears in articles from outlets that are more critical of news media and health research, which is slightly ironic. Sometimes simplifications are necessary, but in my opinion, this one can only do harm.
5) Don’t read the comments on news articles
It’s the internet. As most have learned by now, comments on news articles are terrible, and these are not particularly exceptional. The comments on these articles vacillate between reasonable discussion and absolute nonsense. I looked so you don’t have to. You’re welcome.
|Findings in science, health reporting often overstated on social media||Harvard Gazette / Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health||Press release||June 5, 2018||Study authors worked with press office for this press release|
|Can’t say we didn’t warn you: Study finds popular health news stories overstate the evidence||HealthNewsReview.org||News / blog article||June 13, 2018||Article author interviewed Noah Haber before publication|
|Health misinformation in the news: Where does it start?||KevinMD.com||News / blog article||June 20, 2018||Nearly identical to HealthNewsReview.org article|
|Study examines the state of health research as seen in social media||University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Gillings School of Global Public Health||Press release||June 19, 2018||Study authors worked with press office for this press release|
|Overdrijven de media gezondheidsnieuws?||EIS Wetenschap||News / blog article||June 20, 2018|
|Karra publishes study in PLOS One||Boston University||Press release||June 4, 2018|
|UNC Study Examines the State of Health Research As Seen in Social Media||Association of Schools & Programs of Public Health||Press release||June 28, 2018||Appears to be a direct copy of UNC press release|
|Redes sociales han alterado la forma en que se presentan las noticias de salud||FNPI||News / blog article||Unknown, published at least before June 28|
|Echoing the network||Nieman Lab||News / blog article||August 6, 2018|
|Health News In Crisis?||European Journalism Observatory||News / blog article||July 18, 2018|
|'A large grain of salt': Why journalists should avoid reporting on most food studies||CBC News||News / blog article||September 6, 2018||Article author interviewed Noah Haber before publication|
|Il giornalismo sanitario è in crisi?||European Journalism Observatory||News / blog article||September 21, 2018||Appears to be a reposting of a previous EJO article|