It doesn’t take one thousand words to write an excellent story.  We’ve given our top five-star scores to some stories that used only 500 or so words.  One recent example: 

“Less acid, brittler hips? Some heartburn drugs may be behind an increase in fractures,” 566-word story by Los Angeles Times. 

But stories in the 100-300 word range are severely challenged. And we’ve seen some recent examples in stories we’ve reviewed on the site.

“It may be time to can the cola,” 106-word story in U.S. News & World Report magazine. (1 star)  

“Quick depression relief?” 142-word story in the Buffalo News. (1 star) 

“Drug may help hypochondriacs,” 244-word story in the Washington Post. (1 star)  

“Moderate drinking may help men with high blood pressure,” 273-word story in the Boston Globe. (2 stars) 

You can read the reviews of any of these stories to see what is left out when stories are limited to such a low word count. 

News organizations employ such “news in briefs,” “science notebooks” or “health headlines” to give the appearance of broader coverage of health, medicine and science.  But such coverage, while it may be a mile wide, is often only an inch deep.  It often feels like filler, when readers deserve vital information that is left out.  

Indeed, the Statement of Principles of the Association of Health Care Journalists says:  “While brevity and immediacy are touchstones of news reporting, health and medical reporting must include sufficient context, background and perspective to be understandable and useful to audiences/readers. Stories that fail to explain how new results or other announcements fit within the broader body of evidence do not serve the interests of the public.”

I have not written about the surprise December 26 sale of the Minneapolis Star Tribune to Avista Capital Partners. Clearly it was another sign of tough economic times in the newspaper industry.

Today's health section of the paper may be another sign of a paper limping through its routine. It's a weekly health section and there isn't one locally-produced piece in the section. Contributions come from the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times. I'm not tying this anecdote to the new ownership; in fact, I've observed such a trend in this section before. When the paper announced its new redesign more than a year ago, the window-dressing nature of this weekly health section was obvious. No new resources or staffing were devoted to the coverage of health, medicine, or science. Just a weekly section, often filled with contributions from other sources.

Oh, well, at least the Star Tribune's editorial page today addressed local needs. The editorial states: "At a Capitol news conference last week, Gov. Tim Pawlenty had finished outlining his much-awaited plan to expand health insurance coverage when a reporter asked how many Minnesotans would gain coverage under its provisions. An aide consulted some notes and replied: 23,000 people, including 13,000 children.

That number is too low. It's a small fraction of Minnesota's 70,000 uninsured children, and less than one-tenth of its uninsured adults. In fact, it could be less than the number of people who lost coverage from state budget cuts in 2003. It shows a disappointing lack of leadership in a state that prides itself as a leader in health care -- and that now measures itself against states where Republican governors have embraced universal coverage."