Thank you. So many thoughts here. I think researchers and journals are complicit in this problem - as a layperson, I am left wondering how some studies get approved when they are so badly designed and then how journals don't seem to act as gatekeepers in a proper manner. Why can't we see raw data? Why do journalists (and, frankly, many doctors) not understand the difference between relative and absolute risk - especially in drug trials? I could go on and on. I'm currently taking a course in reading and understanding medical studies so that at least I can read them with a better critical eye and not rely on churnalists.
Thanks for this. Why don't you turn this into a course that could be taught to a geriatric population? You could do this through the Osher Lifelong Learning Institutes (OLLI) at various colleges and universities (for example, you have one at Northwestern and maybe at Illinois in Chicago). The Bernard Osher Foundation might also have grant money to develop such a course. Many public libraries also offer community courses. You might get teachers from local colleges and the pool of retirees. I would like to think that as part of each state mandate for public health, each local department of health would also help. Note: I would LIKE to think... I am begging you to think of us geriatric folks because we are the ones who are often abused by hucksters, a self-serving press, houses of worship selling full-body CT's and ultrasounds and whatnot, etc. We need to organize to take care of ourselves and each other because, well, since so many professionals make their living off our ignorance, they are not going to help us. We need to learn how to think once again, or maybe for the first time. One day, Cifu, you and Prasad and Mandrola will be old SOBs, and you'll be looking for a little help. Again, thanks for this. Regards.
I think you're searching for Nirvana and you're going to be perpetually disappointed. . Firstly, journalists generally have absolutely no background in medicine, biology or science in general. If they were real students, they wouldn't be in journalism. You're asking them to evaluate and ask the right questions in fields where they have zero training. It's like asking me to report on a study concerning quantum physics. Secondly, you're asking them to care--they don't. They're not interested veracity, integrity or how a study was constructed. They're interested in grabbing a headline and now many clicks it gets. They're also interested in promoting their own ideas, be they political or scientific, which adds another layer of obfuscation and confusion. And they don't even recognize that as a problem. Don't frustrate yourself. Give it up. Journalism is dead!! Actually, it may have never been alive.
While I think you might be right about the Iowa Picayune, I think we have a right to expect that science reporters at The Newspapers of Record should be able to understand the basics of study designs, even if, say, they don't understand the minutiae of the molecular basis of a drug function, or the calculations of a physics paper. But, on the other hand you're right. Clickbait and aggrandizement on Twitter is what makes careers.
"asking them to care - they don't" Actually, they do care. A LOT!. They just care about the wrong things for the wrong reasons. Like spreading a leftist point of view in every aspect of the story. Or making sure the virtue signaling is priority one regardless of facts. So yeah, agree with you 100% that journalism is dead.
I’m sure it’s true that much reporting is from clickbaters. However, at least some of the audience might benefit from having a framework to apply if they genuinely want to understand a topic.
