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.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
A lot of interesting workshops are happening now at the #NBCCSummit! @garyschwitzer, the publisher of @HealthNewsRevu, is discussing new cancer research news. #BeBold
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like