How many clicks can a story deliver? That’s the coin of the realm of news delivered on the web.
The bait employed by CBS recently was a 13-slide photo series under the heading “Too much of this will kill you.” If enough of us click on all 13, then CBS can brag to advertisers about increased traffic.
They led the photo series with the recent story of doctors tracing a man’s kidney failure to his habit of drinking a gallon of iced team each day. That’s #1 in the series.
#2 (photo below) : CBS wrote: “licorice-clad models may look delicious, but beware: According to the Food and Drug Administration, people 40 or older who eat 2 ounces of black licorice a day for at least two weeks could end up in the hospital with an irregular heart rhythm or arrhythmia.”
#4: Water: “In 2007, a woman died after drinking too much water as part of a radio station giveaway contest.”
#6: Salt: “a 45-year-old woman with an eating disorder became comatose and died after consuming 3 or 4 tablespoons of salt.” AND: “In March 2015, New York mom Lacey Spears, left, was convicted of killing her 5-year-old son, Garnett, by putting salt into his hospital feeding tube.”
#13: Polar bear liver: “experts estimate that a mere 500 grams of polar bear liver has enough vitamin A to kill a human. Other animal livers, such as moose and seal, also contain a very high amount of vitamin A.”
How, about, instead, a 10-slide series capturing our 10 story review criteria. At last check, CBS, with rare exceptions, wasn’t doing very well on those. That might help more readers than advice about eating too much licorice or polar bear liver.
Our team applied our 10 standardized criteria to review more than 225 news stories and…
Carolina Branson, PhD is an associate editor with HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets as @BransonCarolina. Facebook recently announced…
What does it mean when the FDA designates an experimental approach with "breakthrough status"? You weren't…
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Weekly Digest--GWU withdraws news release, then doubles down on PR spin; Harvard's questionable COI policy - https://t.co/FVs2nrWA25
5-Star writing by @couldthishappen leads to great ?'s about cell phones and our health
Kudos to @blakeellis3 @melhicken
@cerealcommas for their "little red pill" exposé, my pick for this week's installment. https://t.co/rf4uLADl0c
.@HoltzReport takes on Harvard conflict of interest policy over poop-based sports drink company (that's right, poop) https://t.co/UceFbLtlY3
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
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
Our team applied our 10 standardized criteria to review more than 225 news stories and…
Carolina Branson, PhD is an associate editor with HealthNewsReview.org. She tweets as @BransonCarolina. Facebook recently announced…
What does it mean when the FDA designates an experimental approach with "breakthrough status"? You weren't…