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).
Better sleeping pills for rats and monkeys awakened for midnight memory tests. Many questions for people with insomnia.
This story had excellent sourcing, but journalistic legwork isn’t enough to ensure a quality piece.
News editors should have taken a hint from the editors of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology who gave this research space for only a brief report, not thinking it worthy of a full-length article. The story exaggerates the importance and mischaracterizes the results of the study.
The story feels like a conversation among a lot of very smart people explaining hip surgery in a very compelling way, so compelling that you might miss the lack of evidence for the new method being touted in this story.
Another overly optimistic account of findings from an observational study.
A solid report that touched on most of our suggested 10 story criteria. Despite the two unsatisfactory scores, the story did a good job capturing the essence and importance of the study.