Breast cancer: When is the news not fit to print
Newsworthiness is not a level playing field.
Some topics merit coverage only when something really big happens. Others get into the news media on the merest of incremental developments.
Dinosaurs are a good example of the low-threshold category. So many people love to read about them that just about any claim relating to these extinct reptiles gets into the paper or on the air or–especially–onto the Web. Today’s example is a previously unknown species found in a museum cabinet. (News release here.)
In the medical realm the lowest standards for newsworthiness probably are for claims and opinions about breast cancer. A search for “breast cancer” in Google News yielded the following stories published in the past few days, listed here by their headlines:
–Mammograms cut risk of breast cancer death by half
–Study faults partial radiation for breast cancer
–Diabetes, obesity after 60 may up breast cancer risk
–Study supports mammograms for women in their 40s
–Pfizer jury awards $72 million after finding Prempro caused breast cancer
–Breast cancer planner helps in treatment and recovery
–Federal Breast Density Inform solution sought (informing women about their breast density which can mask tumors)
–Family history not a factor in rates of invasive disease, nodal development
You get the idea. All kinds of claims and counterclaims are pretty much always flying. Some stories were okay. Almost none gave significant background or context. A few medical writers were gulled into parroting thin claims as conclusive findings.
Lung cancer kills almost twice as many women as does breast cancer, and heart disease kills six times as many women as breast cancer. Why don’t we see similar attention to these much more important threats to women’s health in the mass media?
-Boyce Rensberger
