Spin with a Pretense of Journalism in Pediatric Obesity
The difference between investigative journalism and opinion writing is enormous. Both are valuable. But not interchangeable. So when Stat News publishes a lengthy opinion piece on pediatric obesity guidelines and labels it as investigative journalism, they are unfortunately dispensing spin. This is the case of a report published yesterday under a headline reading:
“Pediatricians’ Obesity Guidelines Rest on Shaky Evidence About Eating Disorder Risks”
A Valid Opinion, Not an Objective Report
The author of this report, Kate Raphael, has strong feelings about eating disorders. It is a subject that inspires strong feelings for good reasons. They can be deadly or profoundly disruptive to a person’s life. They often do not command the attention or serious respect they deserve. The place to express these feelings is in opinion writing, as Alison Hill explains:
“Opinion journalism is when you can ‘say your piece’ and fling off the shackles of objectivity, while presenting a cogent argument. You can be as opinionated as you like (within reason, of course) on whatever current issue or topic that catches your attention, be it politics, a trend, or new policy.”
In sharp contrast, “investigative journalism takes a deep dive into a story or topic to uncover something previously unknown or deliberately hidden.”
When opinion writing masquerades as instigative journalism – as it does in Raphael’s piece about pediatric obesity – it becomes a work of pure spin. An exercise in persuasion, not a report of objective truth.
A Snippet Out of Context
To make her case that pediatric obesity guidelines “rest on shaky evidence,” Raphael dives deep into the middle of this 100-page document to seize upon a snippet as the foundation for her argument against the the whole guidance document:
“The AAP cited three academic papers to support its conclusion that aggressive obesity treatments would not fuel disordered eating, saying the literature clearly ‘refutes this relationship.’”
In doing so, she glosses over the the primary summary of the guidelines, easily found in the executive summary:
“Multiple studies have demonstrated that, although obesity and self-guided dieting place children at high risk for weight fluctuation and disordered eating patterns, participation in structured, supervised weight management programs decreases current and future eating disorder symptoms (including bulimic symptoms, emotional eating, binge eating, and drive for thinness) up to 6 years after treatment.”
So no. The pediatric obesity guidelines of the American Academy of Pediatrics do not “rest on shaky evidence.” It offers careful guidance for meeting the needs of young persons with impaired health because of obesity, while recognizing that these persons may also be at risk of disordered eating.
Clinical care is never easy. But it must respect both the person seeking care and the truth of objective clinical evidence.
Click here for Raphael’s article, here for the AAP guidelines, and here for their executive summary. For further perspective, click here.
Spinning Fire, photograph by Dey.sandip, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0
Subscribe by email to follow the accumulating evidence and observations that shape our view of health, obesity, and policy.
September 17, 2024
