(3 stars) Another story that lets a drug company get away with making superiority claims without releasing data. News organizations that give industry such a platform are not going to get a pass from us.
(0 stars) Advocacy wrapped in a news report’s clothing. It led by saying the Medicare decision “was big disappointment to many advocates,” and then gave only those advocates a platform, excluding other views.
(4 stars) Good job alerting readers to scientific debate about the benefits and harms of fortifying food with folic acid. A welcome contrast to stories that either adore or vilify vitamins.
(0 stars) Pretty pictures and a tale of tragic loss, but lacking any context or facts that would allow viewers to understand what is new or relevant about a device to screen for melanoma skin cancer.
(2 stars) In almost every way, this story overstates the benefits and essentially ignores the risks and limitations of testosterone injections for male contraceptive use.
(1 star) A few minutes of techno-tainment with inexcusable, almost inconceivable lapses in journalistic hygiene. No discussion of cost, of evidence for benefits or harms, and no independent insight.
(2 stars) Bone loss and fragility fractures are an important topic. But this Q&A column was short on evidence for the role of walking in preventing osteoporosis, and on risks and other alternatives.
(5 stars) Good story on virtual colonoscopy. Covers costs, insurance issues, conflicting scientific conclusions, and potential harms. Fell short, though, on quantifying potential benefits of this technology.
(3 stars) Overall tone of the story emphasizes the good news while soft-peddling the caveats. While some experts quoted elsewhere called it an incremental advance, this story portrayed the results as dramatic.
(2 stars) Story on arthroscopy to treat hip pain explains the theoretical basis for its potential benefit. But fails to mention costs or potential harms, and cites expert testimony in lieu of evidence.
(4 stars) A generally good job. But the story fails to convey caveats – e.g., that the improvement was quite small. No discussion of costs and incomplete discussion of side effects of ADHD medications.
(3 stars) Important progress in the testing of novel interventions is newsworthy, but this story includes premature claims of superiority to standard treatments. This story went a bit too far, too soon.
(4 stars)
(4 stars)
