doctormuse.com

You've just read a sensational blog; stimulating, thought provoking and inspirational enough to discuss with your friends and colleagues. OK, lets say it was a magazine article, maybe even a book or newspaper article.  The content of the published information swirls around in your head challenging some of the basic tenets of truth, values and beliefs you've always aspired to.  

Where do you go with this? What do you do with this insightful content? If you're looking to have fun with the information you'd be tempted to shout across the room to a co-worker and spill the information as quickly as possible, amused by being the first to announce the news, information or opinion.  Once blurted out, you feel like you're ahead of the curve. Before you can say, "I'm in the know" ten times fast, the news has spread throughout the floor, onto people's PDAs and into digital space.  

On the other hand, if you're interested in delving more deeply into the subject matter, seeking greater objectivity and clarity before discussing the content, you might do a search on the author or check the sources of information before talking publicly about the material. 

In this day and age media content is ubiquitous, it channels into our heads through cell phones, Blackberry's, computer terminals, radios, magazines, newspapers, books, TV, and yes, even blogs. Sometimes, like a paradoxical Einstein theory, we even imagine the news travels to us faster than it actually occurs.  

Transition to digital media has stifled growth of conventional newspapers and magazines. Many pundits have predicted the demise of printed media in its present format unless measures are taken to change the value of its content.  Philp Meyer, professor emeritus in Journalism at the University of North Carolina at Chapal Hill and the author of "The Vanishing Newspaper: Saving Journalism the Information Age," wrote an article in American Journalism Review October/November 2008 titled, "The Elite Newspaper of the Future."  http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4605 .  In it he states, "A smaller, less frequently published version packed with analysis and investigative reporting and aimed at well-educated news junkies that may well be a smart survival strategy for the beleaguered old print product."

Meyer is honing in on what the medical profession has known for years.  With so much content readily available simply by clicking a mouse the only salable feature a newspaper can now offer is credibility. Medical science refers to it as Evidence-based Research/Practice/Writing. Evidence-based accountability was partly a response to the FTC's 1975 ruling allowing advertising in the medical professions. Although the concept took years to evolve, peer reviewed scientific journals became the trusted solution to the mayhem created by free trade practices in the healthcare professions.  

Traces of evidence-based medicine suggest its roots may have originated in ancient Greece or China but the modern birth is attributed to a Scottish Epidemiologist named Archie Cochrane. In 1972 Cochranes' work, Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services led to increased acceptance of evidence-based concepts. Later, in 1992, the term evidence-based medicine was first coined in a paper written by Guyatt et al. (JAMA. 1992 Nov 4;268(17):2420-5 ). In 1996 Adrian Smith, as President of the Royal Statistical Society proposed evidence-based policy should be used in education, policing and all areas of government. (Smith, A.F.M. (1996). "Mad cows and ecstasy: chance and choice in an evidence-based society". Journal of the Royal Statistical Association, Series A 159: 367–83.).

Meyer references the term evidence-based journalism in his paper.  He reckons the savior of newspaper journalism will be not reporting on new information that streams in from everywhere but in the processing, analyzing and formatting of the data.  He states, "The raw material for this processing is evidence-based journalism, something that bloggers are not good at originating." 

Comparing print news media and medical science might be far reaching, but logically, evidence-based thinking might be the common thread that re-establishes integrity and viability within these professions.  Although medicine is by no means held in as high esteem as it was in the 1950's, evidence-based protocols and philosophy have done a lot to re-establish sorely needed integrity lost as a result of HMO's and competitive marketing in the health care professions.  Post-Graduate doctoral students are trained to decipher the validity of published scientific literature by carefully reviewing experimental design, methodology and sponsorship of the research.  Literature that passes the litmus test can be used as reference for evidence-based clinical decision making.  

Can a parallel be drawn between preserving printed media and rescuing medical science?  Possibly yes.  Medicine took the high road, accepted advertising and marketing but established advanced guidelines for research and clinical practice. Likewise, journalism cannot stop the stampede of published content flooding the digital airways but it can elevate the standards of written material chosen for distribution.  In this manner educated and intelligent people will look towards select printed media for truth and interpretation of the published data.