First, this is not "beat up on the Star Tribune week." There's no agenda here. Sometimes events and patterns unfold before one's eyes.

On Monday, in my "Proportionality in Journalism" entry, I wrote about Mother's Day weekend stories in several media - "endless weapy stories about breast cancer. But few hard issue-oriented stories about breast cancer. About the dilemmas in diagnosis and treatment, in funding, in consumer decision-making."

Today, a woman who describes herself as a veteran oncology nurse has a letter to the editor in the Star Tribune.

She writes: "As a longtime oncology nurse, I was pleased to see the May 15 front-page story about the Susan Komen Race for the Cure. As the name of the event implies, there is not yet a cure for metastatic breast cancer. This important fact was then obscured by the reporter's choice to focus on a young woman who is seeking treatment unsupported by the type of rigorous scientific study that the Komen Foundation funds. The story pulls at the heartstrings, but fails to inform us about proven treatments and the progress that has been made in prolonging and improving the lives of women with breast cancer. A physician who offers his treatment as the 'only hope' is, sadly, too good to be true."

Her letter is a call for evidence-based medical reporting. And proportionality. That's the backbone of my week-long tirade about what I've seen - and not seen - in Twin Cities health news this week.

It may be time to listen to the readers and viewers. They're not happy. That may be why readership and viewership are declining.

As my research has shown, whenever ratings-sweeps periods roll around, television news departments miraculously find time to cure the problem of not having enough time to devote to health news.

In my market, Minneapolis-Saint Paul, the May sweeps period has been filled with tears, joy and new hope surrounding dramatic breakthroughs and promising developments for victims of illness. (There, I just polished off my “seven words you shouldn’t use in medical news��? in almost the same time as the normal TV anchor lead-in.)

This week on local TV, I saw:

• The “countdown to separation��? for conjoined twins. And I saw it over and over and over on all local stations. All conjoined twins all the time. Like it's never been done before. You'd never know there were 45-million uninsured in this country but you sure know a lot about these two kids.

• A single-source story, “Doctor Has New Method To Break Up Kidney Stones,��? with no input from any independent source

• “Minnesota Twins’ wives step up to fight cancer��?

• “States prepare for bird flu fears, pandemic��? – how health officials from California to New York were taking steps to allay any fears that might arise from the TV movie "Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America" – a local ABC affiliate story about the ABC network movie that was panned by critics. Nice cross-promotion, huh? Or, the local affiliate could have just refused to air the sappy production.

• Another station posted on its website, “Bird Flu Preps,��? asking the tough questions for which we all want answers, such as: “But what happens if there's no one to anchor the news? No one to operate the cameras? And no reporters in the field to tell us what's going on?��?

To be fair, I saw only a portion of one story that reported: “An organ donation group that gives priority to members over others in need is causing medical ethicists to question its appropriateness.��? This is the kind of issue-oriented health news story that is lacking in many TV newscasts. So credit should be given to KSTP-TV for digging beneath the surface of news releases on breakthroughs and cures.

In early February, on CNN's American Morning program, CNN medical correspondent Dr. Sanjay Gupta discussed "tips for men" about what kind of medical tests they should have in their 30s, 40s and 50s. (Transcript)

Gupta and guest, Dr. Christopher Kelly of NYU School of Medicine, then listed a series of tests they recommend for men in their 30s, including a baseline electrocardiogram (ECG). But their advice clashes with that of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a group of medical experts convened by the federal government to conduct rigorous, impartial assessments of scientific evidence and develops recommendations for clinical preventive services.

Routine ECGs are not recommended for men in their 30s who don't have risk factors. Their value in middle-aged men with risk factors is unclear.

The task force lists important weaknesses in the idea of using routine ECGs, and reminds consumers of "the lack of evidence that earlier detection leads to better outcomes." The task force advises that "routine screening with ECG should be avoided in populations where the prevalence of coronary artery disease is low, including most adults under 40. ...The inconvenience, expense, and potential risks of routine screening might be justified if it significantly reduced the incidence of MI and sudden cardiac death, but such evidence is not yet available."

Gupta later stated that "men should visit their doctors annually," a controversial recommendation at best.

His guest, Dr. Kelly, then said that men in their 50s "should also be aware that they need prostate cancer screening." He said they need it. But the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says "there is not enough evidence to tell whether such screening is effective or not."

"The USPSTF found good evidence that PSA screening can detect early-stage prostate cancer but mixed and inconclusive evidence that early detection improves health outcomes. Screening is associated with important harms, including frequent false-positive results and unnecessary anxiety, biopsies, and potential complications of treatment of some cancers that may never have affected a patient's health. The USPSTF concludes that evidence is insufficient to determine whether the benefits outweigh the harms for a screened population."

Gupta concluded by saying that for men like the one he profiled at the beginning of the story, "early tests and early detection could be a lifesaver." Yes, it is possible that early detection can be a lifesaver. But as you've just seen, enthusiasm for early tests is often not supported by evidence. There can be harms from doing screening tests in people without symptoms when the evidence doesn't support such screening.

We hope CNN and other journalists can learn from this review.