(3 stars) The story is a mixed bag. In some respects, it does a good job by providing commentary from independent experts and covering costs. However, it fails in a number of key points.
(5 stars) Adequate description of the study and potential radiation exposure harms. Reminds consumers to be aware of market forces and of both good and bad implications when tests are ordered.
(0 stars) Another low point for CBS. An ex-jock promotes early prostate screening that lacks the support of many medical experts. No disclosure that his appearance was paid for by a drug company. Shameful.
(3 stars) The yin and yang of TV morning shows: a new wrinkle treatment is called a breakthrough. Then there were strong caveats, even advice that “you should wait a few years.” So why all the air time?
(5 stars) Adequate job summarizing Gardasil’s safety profile. However, saying that there were "32 deaths, one in over 700,000 doses" implies that the vaccine is the cause when that isn’t certain.
(5 stars) TV story that does a good job of describing the controversy over Gardasil vaccination and educating consumers about the issue. Uses multiple sources with important differences of opinion.
(0 stars) The story noted that people should make vaccination decisions with good information. Unfortunately it didn’t provide much. A confusing jumble lacking appropriate context.
(3 stars) In fewer words than even the CBS TV story, USA Today gives readers more and better info. But it also hypes the findings by using the word “revolutionary” and by emphasizing relative risk reduction.
(3 stars) Reasonable report of results of a study linking aspirin to better colon cancer survival. But no explanation of what makes the study special. And the anchor’s advocacy may have been at play again.
(3 stars) Story on platelet-rich plasma therapy for tendon injuries falls short in two key areas but is nonetheless engaging, well-written, reasonably accurate and responsible in the impression it conveys.
