In een interview met journaliste Julie Rehmeyer legt David Tuller
(New York Times) uit
hoe hij er na een door hem geschreven artikel over CBT/GET artikel over de
PACE-trial
achter kwam dat de zaken toch heel anders lagen dan hij in eerste instantie dacht,
en besloot om een zeer uitgebreid, historisch artikel over ME/CVS en het CDC te schrijven.
Welllicht dat journalisten in Nederland en België iets van deze "les" kunnen op steken...
Een aantal artikelen van David Tuller in de New York Times over ME/CVS:
David Tuller untangles the research history of chronic fatigue syndrome
...
I think all of
this is really important for understanding why patients can be so
suspicious and paranoid. In most of the coverage, the XMRV situation
was decontextualized from the experience of patients and history of
the illness, although
Amy Dockser Marcus
did some terrific reporting in the Wall Street Journal about
the back story. But no one had really focused in depth on the case
definition problem and the CDC’s role in perpetuating that problem.
...
What lessons can science journalists draw from your experience in writing this story?
...
For science journalists writing about complex public health issues,
I think it’s important not to take the CDC’s word for it,
nor academic researchers, nor the press releases about the studies.
Read the studies yourselves.
Read the studies criticizing those studies, and the responses to the critics.
...
What was the process of trying to sell the story like?
I think it’s hard in general with this issue,
because it’s a hard thing to explain to editors as much as anyone else who hasn’t seen it up close.
First you have to convince people that it’s an illness and
not just a psychological thing,
and then you have to explain that the CDC’s program has been really screwed up.
That preamble takes so long that it’s hard to explain the story.
It’s not a story that you can do in 800 or 1500 words.
...
http://www.theopennotebook.com/2012/01/18/david-tuller-cfs
Met dank aan Evelien en Rob.
|
