Merriam Webster, The Who, and Hacking Churnalism

This post was published at, and has been shared by the APHA Blog.

It is provided so you can find it in a search here at myAPHA.org, but you'll need to link to the original post to read it in its entirety.

Find the link to the entire post at the end of this excerpt.


Merriam Webster, The Who, and Hacking Churnalism

Today we’re channeling The Who, Merriam Webster and one of my longtime favorite fellow patient empowerment buddies, Gary Schwitzer, who reminds me at least weekly why we just can’t trust the media without very careful review. As follows: I love a new word. When this one appeared in my inbox last week, I wanted to share it with you because it’s an important concept for advocates and patients alike. Today’s new word is: Churnalism. (Take that Merriam Webster!) Churnalism is the product of lazy reporters and journalists who, without further investigation or review, simply reprint (or broadcast) a submitted press release or video roll from companies looking to profit, like pharmaceutical companies or medical device makers, or others looking for donations or grants (called “soft money”) like university or non-profit research centers, or anyone else who might make money by getting their information shared. I encountered that new word churnalism in this headline, found in Gary’s Health News Review (HNR) newsletter: Chicago Tribune repost of news release sets new low for churnalism Here’s the problem Gary and his team at Health News Review address:  “News” is published and broadcast every day that makes its readers and listeners sit up and take notice – and is usually at least partially wrong or incomplete, and therefore misleading. Health News Review does just what its name suggests. They review that health news: published stories and articles (text and video) produced by mainstream media and those press release submitters, and they rate them according to a list of criteria which, when met, make a story solid, objective news — information that can be trusted. The best a story can be rated is 5 stars. The worst is zero. Now, it strikes me that churnalism by itself is already the definition of LOW, so to say the repost by the Chicago Tribune was the lowest of low – well – I had to check it out. On the HNR scale – it hit that goose egg, that zero. Ouch. We have all fallen victim to this deception. We read or hear things we want to believe!…


Link to the original full length post.

0
  You may also like:
  • No related posts found.