This story focuses on a family that may have a rare genetic mutation that increases their risk of heart disease. Unfortunately, the “rare” part wasn’t mentioned until 1,600 words into this 2,100 word story.
While this story adequately addressed 7 of our 10 criteria, the 3 on which it missed were significant omissions, yet could have been easily addressed.
Solid medical conference reporting, with many expert interviews and good context provided. Goes far beyond the conference presentation itself.
Overall, a fairly thorough report that addressed almost all of our criteria satisfactorily.
If you skim too quickly, you’ll miss that this “breakthrough” in type 2 diabetes research came from a study of mice — not humans. The story may have overstated the promise of bench research.
This story addressed most of our criteria. The ones it missed could have been easily addressed.
Good details in reporting on the study, and valuable additional context and perspectives.
If the independent expert you interview states that the findings are “not incredibly novel,” then why is this newsworthy?
Even large observational studies have inherent limitations, but this story barely cracked the shell on this topic.
The lead says new type of drug helps people sleep without next-day grogginess. But the experiment did not include people (just animals) and didn’t measure next-day grogginess (just midnight memory tests).