Year: 2009

(3 stars)

This story doesn’t discuss what readers reasonably want to know: what the guidelines are based on, how they might apply to them, and what the risks of getting the screening–or not getting it–are.

(3 stars)

Story doesn’t explain the evidence behind the guidelines. Readers learn of the guideline controversy but get little information to help them evaluate their credibility, applicability or relevance.

(4 stars)

This story did some things that longer stories didn’t.  But it didn’t include viewpoints from any independent sources. So it distilled the new guidelines on the readers’ behalf. But not much more.

(4 stars)

Well-organized story that could have been improved by noting the limitations of drawing conclusions from scientific meeting talks, and by comparing radiation risks of the two approaches studied.  

(5 stars)

This story, on a novel approach to infusing chemotherapy for a brain tumor, just goes to show what a careful, engaged reporter can accomplish when given sufficient time and space to write a story.