I hate to do this but it’s time to take issue with the editors of some of my favorite journals. Having been an editor, I understand the absolute glee of composing a clever headline. But it can become an addiction. Catchy headlines may not sell newspapers anymore, but they often lure readers into stories of significance.
The problem comes when a great headline, and the lead paragraphs, mislead the reader, who may not stick with the story long enough to get the useful information and its implications. The real truth, balanced and interpreted by experts, is often buried on the jump page.
What’s worse, TV news editors everywhere, except on PBS, play to the flashy headline, teasing viewers to stick with the broadcast through endless commercials, without ever giving the rest of the story. It’s the hook, stupid.
So we shouldn’t have been surprised to see and hear, “Low Fat Diet Does Not Protect Against Cancer and Heart Attack.” This may have caught some attention but shouldn’t have prompted anyone to rush out and buy two double fat burgers and a jumbo pack of greasy fries. Deeper in the story, we find that participants in this study were told to eat less fat and more carbohydrates. There was nothing in the study that differentiated between artery-clogging saturated fats, or even more damaging trans fats, and the beneficial fat found in walnuts, olive oil and fish. If, for instance, study subjects were to use fat-free salad dressing (eliminating a common source of beneficial oil) and add carbs from packaged bakery products (most of which are chock full of trans fats from hydrogenated oils), they certainly wouldn’t reap a health benefit.
Editors seem to go for the punchy headline, even if slightly misleading, over the boring details of important information. At times, this is merely an annoyance. But when respected health journals fall for the easy punch, I tend to be really offended. Like the low-fat study grabbing headlines last week in the mainstream media, two respected health letters recently fell for that tactic.
The worst was a cover story in Nutrition Action, a newsletter published by the respected Center for Science in the Public Interest, titled “Supplementing Their Income: How Celebrities Turn Trust into Cash.” Splashy cover photos of Dr. Andrew Weil, Dr. Phil McGraw and Larry King lead to four full pages slamming the guru of integrated medicine and two TV personalities, along with nutritional supplements in general. Their sins: endorsing, and in Weil’s case formulating, vitamin and mineral supplements.
What the article didn’t say is that Weil consistently advises people that it’s more beneficial to get these substances by eating nutritious food. The supplements he sells are for people who simply won’t get enough through their diets. Weil’s own newsletter, Self Healing, devotes its January cover to “Six Fabulous Foods for 2006.” Berries, black cod fish, buckwheat, sweet potatoes, walnuts and turmeric, the spice of Asian curries. To my knowledge, Dr. Weil receives no money from the promotion of these or any other foods.
Larry King, who survived serious heart surgery, says he genuinely believes supplements were helpful in regaining his health. Why shouldn’t he be paid if he would promote them anyway? Dr. Phil, the psychologist who parlayed his association with Oprah Winfrey (helping to defend against her famous “cow defamation” suit) into his own syndicated talk show, was skewered for his weight-loss business. The claim that his Shape Up supplements contain scientifically researched levels of ingredients that can help to change behavior to take control of your weight was challenged by the Federal Trade Commission, and he pulled them from the market. So what? Even the scientific journals can’t seem to agree on how they evaluate results of medical studies.
The article also took issue with his participation in the “Got Milk” ads, complete with milk mustache. Is there a link between eating dairy products and weight loss? The U.S. Dietary Guidelines Committee (they of the inscrutable pyramid) says there’s “insufficient evidence.” But low-fat dairy products are included in the DASH diet that is universally accepted as an aid to lower blood pressure, LDL (bad) cholesterol and triglyceride levels, along with weight control.
Focus groups advise the media that Americans are interested in health issues, as long as they’re presented in an entertaining way. Hence every TV station now has its very own medical expert, and the Los Angeles Times still has a weekly Health section. In a recent round of budget cuts, however, the paper scuttled its Outdoor section, which devoted many pages to all sorts of exercise. Is it possible their medical experts don’t get the connection between the two? Why on earth didn’t they just combine the two sections into one that promotes outdoor exercise and good health? Even passive enjoyment of nature can help lower blood pressure, without even breaking a sweat.
I’ve accepted the fact that news and entertainment are inextricably linked in mainstream media. But when respected health journals subvert their mission, trying to snag readers with flashy headlines and celebrity exposés, they’ve lost my respect and my subscription.