Watch What You Read – and Believe

With all the health news published on-line and in paper, it can be difficult to decide what’s true and what isn’t. After all, it seems that it should be true if it’s printed or announced, particularly when it involves health-related associations and big companies. Or is it? It may all depend in how you’re reading it.

Take for example a press release from the American Academy of Dental Implants. In August, its members came out in favor of using dental (tooth) implants earlier in dental treatments, stating that root canals and other tooth-saving procedures may be a waste of time and money when people are going to end up losing the tooth in the end anyway.

In all fairness, this is quite possible true in many cases. But, what caught my eye was the wording of the press release:

Minichetti noted that a recent study published in the Journal of Oral Implantology showed that single-tooth dental implants are 98.5 percent successful after seven years and there was no discernable bone loss in almost all the implant sites. First-time root canals fail 5 percent of the time, according to the Academy of General Dentistry, and at much higher rates in repeat procedures. Further, endodontic surgical re-treatments, according to published studies, have success rates ranging from 37 to 87 percent.

Look at the wording. When talking about how good implants are, they use a positive, 98.5% success rate. When comparing it to traditional treatment, they use the more negative term “fail.” But the 5% failure rate the cite is really a 95% success rate. Not that much lower than their 98.5% success rate, is it?

Furthermore, in their comment that success rates range from 37 to 87% for re-treatments is also misleading. Re-treatments can be anything and by definition, if there’s a re-treatment, then there was something wrong, the patient fell into the 5% failure category.

Not unusual

Sadly, it’s not unusual to read pieces written in this way. The writer hopes that the reader reads through the piece so quickly that all that stands out is the failure rate versus the success rate. Those words and numbers are powerful and stick with you.

Stories that are really press releases

Another thing that readers need to keep in mind these days is that many press releases are being written as “stories” and are being used as such. Some on-line news sources reprint the press release in its entirety, presenting it as news.

It used to be that press releases were very obvious. They followed an upside down triangle type of format. They were identified as press releases right off the top, with the name of the contact person and the organization issuing the release.

The formula for the release was like this:

A press release is usually quite short, rarely longer than one page (250 to 500 words)

First paragraph: Big announcement, includes company name, product name, etc. (the who, what, where, when and why)

Second paragraph usually includes a quote from an expert or someone who has something to do with the product or issue.

Third paragraph backs up information and wraps things up.

Fourth paragraph gives the conclusion.

What’s happening now though, is that these so-called press releases are being written in article format, supposedly to make it easier for editors who are stretched thin. Who needs to hire a writer if the companies or associations are already writing the articles for them?

How can you tell?

Sometimes you can’t, but if the news “source” you’re reading is scrupulous, they’ll list a source at the bottom of their “article.” What I do then is go back to that source and check their media archives and press releases. Almost always, I’ll find what I just read, word for word.

Moral of the story?

Don’t believe everything you read. Watch how things are worded and if you’re really interested in the topic, research it a bit more.

~~~

Image: PhotoXpress.com