In 400 words, this story did a better job than its WebMD competition did in 500 words on the same study, namely:
Nonetheless, it still:
The flip side is equally true: the benefits may not turn out to be real and that advice may be groundless.
There was no discussion of costs, but most people know what coffee and tea costs.
Because the story noted the limitations of an observational study like this, and because it quantified the statistical associations from the study, we give it a satisfactory score on this criterion.
There was no discussion of the potential harms of drinking large quantities of coffee and tea. There are always tradeoffs. This is worth at least a line.
The story did mention that the information presented was extracted from a review of the published studies; it went on to explain that a clinical trial would be needed to determine whether the impact of these beverages on diabetes was real.
The story did not engage in overt disease mongering. In contrast with the WebMD story, it provided a source when it stated, "Type 2 diabetes, which is often tied to obesity, affects about 8 percent of the U.S. population, according to the U.S. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases."
No independent sources were quoted in the story. We especially feel that this was warranted given the inclusion of the researcher’s bold claims of potential impact of the findings.
While the last line of the story mentioned exercise and diet, there was no context for readers to evaluate how coffee and tea consumption compared to these strategies for reducing the chance of developing type II diabetes.
The availabilty of coffee and tea is not in question.
The story began by explaining that this was a follow-up to a previous literature review of the impact of coffee and tea consumption on type II diabetes.
There is no evidence that the story relied solely or largely on a news release.