Journalism is a skilled craft that requires critical thinking and hard work, because reporters have a responsibility to help their readers sort fact from fiction and to place all of this information into context. This story does not meet that bar.
Whether this particular treatment revolutionizes the landscape for hemophilia B sufferers will remain an open question for some years–and the story should have emphasized that more.
While we welcome a discussion of sleep quality, this story about a small study provides very little context for readers on how much air quality really plays a role in sleep quality.
To its credit, the story competently describes the study methods and findings.
However, the headline’s a bit more positive than perhaps it should be, and information about financial costs and potential harms is missing,
But, the piece does a good job putting the results into context and even compares those findings to the placebo group, giving them a more transparent and helpful context.
However, the story should have avoided using the word “cure” in the headline, since we don’t know the long-term results yet.
This type of surgery is a relatively risky and untested treatment option, and news coverage needs to stress that.
As a TIME story points out, a new study on light activity and reduced mortality can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship, yet the story never really explains why this is the case.
However, the story could have provided more information on the potential harms of screening tests, as well as expected costs.