Climbing up on my soapbox. This mask study is pissing me off.

I previously worked in healthcare PR for a major NYC area research hospital. Lemme tell you, a lot of our time was spent trying to get journos to issue corrections to pieces about our published studies. 1/n

I can clearly remember my direct supervisor (I was lowest on the corporate ladder) spending nearly an hour on the phone with the NY Daily News asking them to issue a retraction on a cancer study that they had misinterpreted. They refused. Wouldn't even update it digitally. 2/n

That was my introduction to how newsrooms without a dedicated science beat often get things wrong unintentionally.

But sometimes they get it wrong intentionally because it's better for the "wow factor". That's how you get "X food increases/lowers risk for cancer" headers. 3/n

Often when we pushed studies my boss would make a bet with me to guess the headlines for the studies from the main newspapers. He was rarely wrong on the angle they would take. This was also something we media trained researchers for re: interviews. 4/n

That brings me to today's hot topic Danish study about masks.

There are so many issues with how this study is being portrayed. I can't find many news sources pointing out that this was a study of *surgical masks* and not *all masks* (yes #notallmasks). 5/n

Then there's the @svtnyheter article that says the study didn't prove what the researchers had hypothesized...I seriously don't have time to go through how the scientific method works but all studies begin with a hypothesis. 6/n

Article here: https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/ingen-storre-skillnad-i-skydd-mot-corona-med-munskydd-visar-dansk-studie

Lemme switch to my media studies brain and point out that the structure of these articles also matters for framing.

That article above? Only at the very end do they mention that the study didn't track how masks affect the spread of the virus to others. Why does it matter? 7/n

It matters because of how we often interact with web content. We skim more than we deep read. Granted as this is a large study ppl might pay more attention to every word but SVT has bolded the words they felt were important at the top. Who reads the rest? Would love a heatmap 8/n

In summary - This was a study that was important for better understanding the role of masks in this pandemic. But I firmly believe the wrong message has been taken from this and it will have consequences moving forward. Science communication matters, especially now. 9/n

I will wrap up by saying that I recognize journos have a rough job with smaller budgets and less time to do fact-checking. I want you all to have far better resources.

But stories like this matter so damn much and we all need to work better at getting the facts right. 10/n