The more famous the expert, the more likely to be wrong
Last post I explored how the most popular anti-aging website on the planet, RealAge.com (27 million visitors!), might not be your best source of medical information, as they are supported, handsomely, by several drug companies. Some of the content and marketing material might be biased towards taking medications when something simpler, like exercise (or just getting off the couch more) could be just as effective, cheaper, and without side effects.
Nicholas Kristof
I suggest you read a short piece by Nicholos Kristof, a New York Times columnist, from March 18 entitled “The Daily Me” (a popular piece; for several days the most emailed article from the Times). The gist was that as paper newspapers go bankrupt and disappear—today a major Chicago paper declared bankruptcy, and a week ago the largest Seattle paper went online only—we will get more of our news online. No shock; you might say, that’s fine, but research shows a problem, and it could adversely effect your medical news.
Mr. Kristof discusses research that as people gather their own news online, they predominantly visit sites with news and opinions that they already agree with…few people visit sites that present information or opinions that disagree with their current thinking. The long-term tendency then is for less broadly-informed people; individuals more polarized towards their pre-existing biases. This effect could as well pertain to medical news as we more and more get health information from blogs and sites that are most comfortable, and avoid conflicting opinions or difficult advice. Some of the most attractive sites are those developed with big corporate money. There, sometimes the information (even when written by an M.D.) may be a rehashed press release—another piece in the marketing pie.
So be careful as you read medical news online. Take into consideration corporate “sponsors” or “partners” (look for the “about” page or similar). Check out sites that might not have sponsors or advertising, and strive to get more balanced medical news by always looking for fresh sources and a variety of input.
Finally, relating to medical experts, I suggest Kristof’s column from this week “Learning How to Think”. Here he notes how many media “experts” actually are not, and that the more famous the media expert, the more likely they are to be wrong! Absolutely fascinating. It seems TV and the media in general seek out “experts” with strong convictions and black-and-white opinions. Great for sound bites and boosting viewership, but the less famous experts—less splashy and well-known—tend to explore the nuances of an issue (more boring), but are more likely to be right. Kristof covers financial experts who were so wrong about the current crisis, but, might this also apply to famous medical experts? Think about that next time you see a doctor endorsed by Oprah.
