NOTE TO READERS: When this project lost substantial funding at the end of 2018, I lost the ability to continue publishing criteria-driven news story reviews and PR news release reviews - once the bread-and-butter of the site going back to 2006. The 3,200 archived reviews, while still educational, are getting old and difficult for me to technically maintain on the back end of the website. So I am announcing that I plan to remove these reviews from the site by April 1, 2021. The blog and the toolkit - two of the most popular features on the site - will remain. If you wish to peruse the reviews before they disappear, please do so by the end of March 2021. After that date you may still be able to access them via the Internet Archive Wayback Machine -

Hyperlocal hyperbole in health news

Posted By


An example of what appears to be happening more often – perhaps with the hyperlocal emphasis of many news organizations.

The Indianapolis Star reports on a story it claims could “revolutionize cardiac care” and “could save thousands of lives.”

But for the new use in question, the procedure has only been done in animals. Even the promoter says human testing is a year away.

The story contained no discussion of evidence, of costs, of harms. Only anecdotes. There was an incomplete discussion of alternative options for the problem in question.

A reality check on a story like this: If the research came out of Ann Arbor or Columbus instead of Indianapolis, do you really think it would get this kind of play by the Indy paper?

Would it have been covered at all?

If not, why not? And then why is it worthy of such hyperlocal hyperbole just because it did involve an Indianapolis physician?

You might also like


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.