Posted by Gary Schwitzer in Health care journalism
HealthNewsReview.org review summary:
A 183-word story just can’t do much. And this story didn’t.The NY paper clearly picked up the story from the BBC and passed along erroneous information about basic information such as where the study was published.
But at the heart of the story was the improper and inaccurate use of causal language from an observational study that can’t establish causation, but only association. It is wrong when the story states, “The diet…has a positive effect on mood.”
This kind of research news via briefs and pickups from other news organizations is a waste of time and space.
At least on the Chicago Tribune’s website, this story appeared in the Health section – not the local business or feature section. It didn’t address most of the things we think are crucial in a health story.
“Brown fat” has ignited a grease fire of media hype in recent weeks.This WebMD story missed a good opportunity to smother the flames.
We reviewed this story and a competing AP story on these new fibroid studies. Read and compare.
We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share youre-mail address with any third parties.
For site updates and news from Gary, find us on Twitter:
HealthNewsReview: @HealthNewsRevu
Gary Schwitzer: @garyschwitzer
Copyright © 2012 Health News Review
Add Comment
Disclaimer: I welcome comments but will delete those with any kind of product pitch, profanity, personal attacks or those from anyone who doesn’t list what appears to be an actual e-mail address. I will also end any thread of comments that are repetitive. Because I moderate comments, I can’t keep reacting to repeatedly inaccurate or unsubstantiated claims. We don't give medical advice so we won't respond to questions asking for it.