At Least They Published This

Before I continue critiquing news articles that fraught with journalistic fail, I'd like to acknowledge that after printing one of these articles, the Star Tribune in Minneapolis/St. Paul did, at least, print this follow-up opinion piece:

Elizabeth Maloney: We've much to learn about Lyme disease

Given that Dr. Maloney opens with a rather scathing criticism of the paper itself, I give kudos to them for having the forthrightness to publish it:

The April 12 article about the resolution passed by the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice ("Activists and doctors divided over Lyme disease treatment") brought many questions to mind, including: "When did the Star Tribune morph into Fox News?" The article used buzzwords and themes known to inflame physicians, and it misled readers regarding the professional credentials and capabilities of physicians who recognize that persistent/chronic Lyme exists.

One of my main criticisms of the journalism surrounding Lyme Disease is exactly what she points out here: all too often, proponents of the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and their "guidelines" are presented as the only ones who have professional credentials and the prestige of a legitimate medical association behind them. Those who recognize the persistence of the disease are presented as "Lymies" who are not professional, or, if they actually quote a doctor, the impression is given that this is a rogue outlier and they are not linked to the larger association of medical professionals who recognize this truth: the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society. Any reader who is not already educated on the subject is likely to discount the word of a "Lymie", don't you think?

I'm not sure why the Star Tribune has taken a step in the right direction by publishing Dr. Maloney's piece. I would like to think that their own sense of integrity was intact. Perhaps, it is. Perhaps, they got enough letters and comments from people after their April 12th piece that they felt compelled to publish it. If they really wanted to do the right thing, though, they'd do a more well-researched, in depth news piece that gives the public a more serious look at the issue.

We're talking about a topic that effects the lives of tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, or people. If the news industry is really interested in doing the public a service, perhaps they could begin by focusing on one question: how is it that after the IDSA has been shown to have had major conflicts of interest -  that is, ethical issues -  it was allowed to essentially police itself, hire a past president of the IDSA to chair the policing, and then violate the terms of the antitrust settlement which set the rules for the policing? When do we stop seeing them as a credible source of information and strip away their rights to authority? When do we start talking about them as the "Lyme Deniers"? How blatant does someone's lack of integrity have to be?

It doesn't take much digging to see what's gone on behind the scenes regarding Lyme Disease. There are books on the subject. One by an acclaimed science journalist: "Cure Unknown". Others laying out the history, too, such as "Beating Lyme".

So, I applaud the Star Tribune for publishing Dr. Maloney's opinion piece. Still, it doesn't carry the same weight as a news piece. It doesn't begin to help the public see that we have one more case in this country of anointing someone one or some group with authority, which has been abused. That it is up to us, to stand up to that abuse and to stop allowing folks with serious integrity issues to rule the day.