Our failed media experiment, New York Times edition

[p_zeitgeist]

So, who else has read today's Page 1 story about alleged over-prescription of pain medication for workers who have suffered workplace injuries

Comments

[semyaza]

The moral panic over narcotics (and other drugs), fuelled by the media and law enforcement, is never-ending but that's no reason not to speak out. It's hard enough to get appropriate pain medication from doctors without the media making the problem worse.

[p_zeitgeist]

No, the only reason not to speak out is that dreary sense that it's no more than spinning my wheels: no one at the Times will actually care or do anything about it. But you're right: this sort of thing does genuine harm, and it doesn't hurt to have them at least reminded from time to time that when they whine about how Americans no longer trust the press, they're whining about a problem they've created by not being remotely trustworthy. And that they could fix, if only they're willing to put some time and work into changing that.

[semyaza]

I agree about the reason not to speak out - I feel that way too often myself - but then I wonder if I'm shirking a moral responsibility by keeping silent. Mostly, I'm a shirker because I have no confidence in the likelihood of change.

ETA: And having read your comment below - it may just be stupidity.

[p_zeitgeist]

It may be. But stupidity doesn't fully account for the overall tone of the piece: its strong subtext is that measures various players are taking or proposing to address the supposed problem of Too Much Pain Medication are positive steps that we should all support. And it takes its fundamental premise that what's going on with pain medication is in fact that it's overprescribed and in most instances harmful in some mysterious way as, well, a premise: it never allows for any possibility that the pain medication is being prescribed because there are too many people who have a serious problem with pain instead. This, despite the acknowledgment that nobody can say that the pain medication causes any of the problems discussed, and that there isn't even some credible hypothesis out there about how it might

[semyaza]

Now that I've read the article - I'm muddled by the data, especially the paragraph that begins with "Nationwide, data suggests that a vast majority of narcotic drugs..." The conclusion I'd draw is that far too many people suffer from pain caused by work-related injuries which might (or might not) have been less costly or less tenacious if other measures (e.g. therapy) had been taken in the beginning. The writer makes it sound as if the narcotics are responsible when it could be the lack of appropriate treatment. And one would have to see the studies to know what's meant by "those with similar injuries who took lower doses" and so forth.

It's selling it hard because the studies it cites have a particular agenda to push but perhaps the writer had a moment of lucidity in the middle of the article and had no idea what to do with it? I'm going to ask my brother for his take on it. This is his area of expertise.

[p_zeitgeist]

I'd love to know what your brother makes of it. There's nothing like getting the views of an actual expert in the field. I can see what's wrong with the article in the abstract: the places where a chain of logic is missing, and where the author has consciously or unconsciously attempted to create the appearance of that logic where it doesn't exist. But it takes somebody who knows to tell whether the story is incompetent or dishonest. And it would be nice to know which it is, even if for my immediate purposes it doesn't matter too much -- any plea to the public editor to look into it would likely be better couched as a request that he investigate a shocking error, rather than as an accusation of deliberate wrongdoing.

Even, or perhaps especially, if deliberate wrongdoing is what's going on.

[semyaza]

I didn't share your thoughts about it. I sent him the article and asked what he made of it. I expect we'll be discussing it further but this was his preliminary response

[semyaza]

And he adds "the media frequently don't look very hard for an original "meaning" or insight in a story, but simply filter what they are given to fit a familiar trope."

[p_zeitgeist]

And really, that's the root of what I'm complaining about here. It's not the underlying facts; it's that in effect, the facts aren't what's being reported

[semyaza]

I'm sure we'd both agree with you. The story ought to have been something like 'if narcotic painkillers are (over-)prescribed in spite of poor results, why is that and what should we do about it?' Instead, the writer wants to place his story within the context of a larger story - the 'problem' of 'the excessive use' of narcotics - while suggesting that narcotics might cause the development of chronic pain, something for which he has no evidence. He knows there's a problem - and there is - but he's only able to grasp the reasons and convey them to the reader in a fitful way so that, as you say, tone and flow leave the unwary reader with -- well, nothing much at all.

If he'd taken the information in the story, removed speculation and phrases like 'in a sense', and had explored just how inept doctors are when it comes to medications (other brother is a pharmacist, so I have views on this subject), and how insurers/government/health authorities want to weasel out of paying for better and more appropriate treatment, and how doctors