On Jan. 8, I dissected a long article in the Columbia Journalism Review by David H. Freedman which argued, essentially, that accurate and timely coverage of medical news was impossible. Published medical findings are more often wrong than right, he argues, and so a good reporter who conveys those findings accurately is spreading the wrong findings. Better to chat with friends (as we will see below) than to rely on studies.
CJR, in a very unusual move, has now asked a science writer to write a rebuttal to Freedman's piece. (Kudos to the editors for continuing this important conversation.) The new piece, by Gary Taubes, who has done extensive reporting on obesity (and who holds controversial views on the subject), consists of a very smart analysis of the Freedman piece; a pointed discussion of the difficulties involved in writing about obesity; and a surprising personal tale of how Freedman's story evidently destroyed a friendship.
Taubes begins with the third item on that list: the personal friendship. Taubes writes that CJR offered him the assignment to write about medical coverage last September, but that he turned it down for lack of time, and suggested instead that CJR assign it to his "good friend David Freedman." Freedman accepted and went on to single out Taubes's work as an example "of health journalism gone awry."
Taubes writes, "Should we add to the multitude of reasons why a freelancer should never turn down an assignment, the possibility that the friend whom you recommend instead (or the writer the editors choose independently) will publicly disparage your own work in the subsequent article?"
He then turns to one of the thrusts of Freedman's article–that most research findings are wrong, Taubes agrees, but writes, in a rebuke to what we can now assume is his former friend, "I wrote about this problem 14 years ago..and it was not particularly new then." Later, when dismissing studies Freedman cites to support his position, Taubes acidly admonishes Freedman to "read the articles before writing about them."
Then Taubes takes up a more important issue–"why experienced science and health journalists covering the same subject, (obesity, in this case) and all doing precisely what Dave counsels—approaching the literature skeptically and thoughtfully and applying copious common sense—can still come to conclusions that appear to be contradictory conclusions." He then provides an informed analysis of current controversies in obesity research, drifting away from the issue of how such evidence should be covered by medical writers. But it's a smart analysis.
In the end, Taubes does not give us a clear way out of the impasse, except for the usual–and important–advice: be careful, check the evidence, and so on. But it's difficult for reporters to come to reliable conclusions, as Taubes urges them to do, when many obesity experts have not done so either.
One final note: Freedman, in a comment, calls this a "great piece, even if it was dissatisfaction with my piece that inspired it." Here he provides his solution to the problems involved in accurate reporting on obesity, a rather astonishing one: "Seek out people who have lost weight and kept it off for years. Next, ask them how they did it."
Apparently in Freedman's view, asking friends on Twitter and Facebook how they lost weight is a better source of information than clinical studies.
-Paul Raeburn
Leave a Reply