3 ms·

Perhaps news agencies should include some measure of due-diligence and skepticism, rather than parroting.

yifanl 7y ago
Certainly, but skepticism doesn't mean reporting "nothing is true". When the vast majority of medical sources claimed opioids were safe, most media understandably wanted to avoid looking as conspiracy theorists.
ineedasername 7y ago
You assume they didn't due any due diligence. Maybe they didn't, but maybe they did too. Either way, what would have sufficed beyond verifying that it was indeed the prevalent medical opinion of the time and that it wasn't contradicted in any significant way? It's not the role of news media to verify scientific research further than that-- it's the role of the research establishment which, yes, failed at that task until it was too late to avoid a crisis. If there had been significant opposition to this at the time, I would agree that news media failed. But I just searched through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs. Quite the opposite, they pointed towards them being underutilized and leaving patients in significant pain despite low risk of addiction. As it turns out, doctors were wrong. But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light. I can't fault the media for not knowing 25 years ago what the medical establishment has only recently come to accept.
- mieseratte 7y ago
  > I just search through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs. And how many of those studies were funded by the institutions pushing the products being studied? This type of conflict-of-interest / research-funding is nothing new, cigarette companies arguably pioneered this practice decades before. > But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light. Sure, because of a non-ignorable problem. I'm advocating for skepticism, investigative journalism, and research, rather than parroting what industry says is true. I'm seeking reporting, not cheap public-relations pieces. Instead of waiting for a problem, how about we ask questions of how things might fail before it does.
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    In the context of due diligence, it doesn't matter how many articles were sponsored by institutions pushing the products if there were not also articles or other materials that news outlets would have been able to find that countered either the sponsored or independent opinions. They might have noted that sponsored research supported this opinion, but then also have had to admit that independent opinions also did so. Skepticism is all well & good, but it's not the place of news media to be blindly skeptical. This isn't about what turned out to be correct or incorrect, it's about whether any amount of reasonable due diligence by news media would have changed their reporting. And the available information at the time doesn't indicate that it would. Of course hind sight is 20/20, but you assume that media was simply parroting, that they didn't look into available research and come up empty. Maybe some didn't, maybe some did, but the fact remains that if they did, they would have come up empty. If the medical establishment, those actually tasked with the type of skepticism you advocate for, didn't do their job, that's on them. It's not on the media to be able to predict the future. You are simply blindly repeating "They should have done something" when nothing in the historical record would have supported it.
  - nitwit005 7y ago
    You're setting a standard that seems unreachable. If the research is biased, you'd have to start funding your own clinical trials to find the real answer, which is extremely expensive (and perhaps unethical for certain addiction questions, given that you might addict people).

Certainly, but skepticism doesn't mean reporting "nothing is true". When the vast majority of medical sources claimed opioids were safe, most media understandably wanted to avoid looking as conspiracy theorists.

ineedasername 7y ago

You assume they didn't due any due diligence. Maybe they didn't, but maybe they did too. Either way, what would have sufficed beyond verifying that it was indeed the prevalent medical opinion of the time and that it wasn't contradicted in any significant way? It's not the role of news media to verify scientific research further than that-- it's the role of the research establishment which, yes, failed at that task until it was too late to avoid a crisis. If there had been significant opposition to this at the time, I would agree that news media failed. But I just searched through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs. Quite the opposite, they pointed towards them being underutilized and leaving patients in significant pain despite low risk of addiction. As it turns out, doctors were wrong. But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light. I can't fault the media for not knowing 25 years ago what the medical establishment has only recently come to accept.

mieseratte 7y ago
> I just search through ProQuest and Google Scholar for research journals during 1990-2000 and I didn't find much at all that points towards significant risks of increased prescribing of these drugs. And how many of those studies were funded by the institutions pushing the products being studied? This type of conflict-of-interest / research-funding is nothing new, cigarette companies arguably pioneered this practice decades before. > But it's only in the last few years that the scope of the issue has really come to light. Sure, because of a non-ignorable problem. I'm advocating for skepticism, investigative journalism, and research, rather than parroting what industry says is true. I'm seeking reporting, not cheap public-relations pieces. Instead of waiting for a problem, how about we ask questions of how things might fail before it does.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  In the context of due diligence, it doesn't matter how many articles were sponsored by institutions pushing the products if there were not also articles or other materials that news outlets would have been able to find that countered either the sponsored or independent opinions. They might have noted that sponsored research supported this opinion, but then also have had to admit that independent opinions also did so. Skepticism is all well & good, but it's not the place of news media to be blindly skeptical. This isn't about what turned out to be correct or incorrect, it's about whether any amount of reasonable due diligence by news media would have changed their reporting. And the available information at the time doesn't indicate that it would. Of course hind sight is 20/20, but you assume that media was simply parroting, that they didn't look into available research and come up empty. Maybe some didn't, maybe some did, but the fact remains that if they did, they would have come up empty. If the medical establishment, those actually tasked with the type of skepticism you advocate for, didn't do their job, that's on them. It's not on the media to be able to predict the future. You are simply blindly repeating "They should have done something" when nothing in the historical record would have supported it.
- nitwit005 7y ago
  You're setting a standard that seems unreachable. If the research is biased, you'd have to start funding your own clinical trials to find the real answer, which is extremely expensive (and perhaps unethical for certain addiction questions, given that you might addict people).