 |
 |
Happy St. Patrick's Day!
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Science as entertainment: I just can't get enough.
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Science is Beautiful
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Diet Soda, Heart Attacks and Spin
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Anatomy meets Gastronomy
Thursday, February 10, 2011
My biggest lab mistake: Autoclaving 101
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Don't pee on my leg and tell me its raining
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Open Lab 2010 Finalists
Sunday, January 9, 2011
I always wanted to patent..
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Looking back 100 years.. the good, the bad and the plumbing.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Holidays in Lab: Ho Ho Ho! or Bah Humbug!?
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Bazinga! Why I love the BBT!
Friday, December 17, 2010
12 Months of..
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Cholera Vaccinations in Haiti: A Starfish Story
Friday, December 10, 2010
Science Camp: Not Just for Little Boys
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Getting Creative With Science
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Centrifuge FAIL
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
You're a professor and you drive THAT?
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Warning: I don't like being crapped on, or having my chair stolen
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Tagged: The Homework of the Blog World
Friday, August 6, 2010
Advice from Nobel Laureates: Don't Neglect Your Family
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Is our society just better suited for women? Maybe NOT in Science.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Work Life Balance: Career-related Guilt
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
All the cool kids are doing it!
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
|
|
|
|
Lab Mom
Lab Mom spent 15 years as a Lab Manager in Academia before off-tracking in 2010 to stay at home with her two daughters. She blogs about the juggling act of motherhood and a science career, which encompasses a lot more then the cliche work-life balance.
My posts are presented as opinion and commentary and do not represent the views of LabSpaces Productions, LLC, my employer, or my educational institution.
Please wait while my tweets load 
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have noticed this story circulating around my social circles, and I was ignoring the hype (as usual) because I am keenly aware of how the mainstream media loves to spin a good science story.
In case you didn't hear about the newest fear-inducing phobia (Diet Soda), let me just give you a few headlines:
MSN: "Daily diet soda tied to higher risk for stroke, heart attack"
USA Today: "Study: Diet soda linked to heart risks"
CBS: "Diet Soda, Heart Attack Linked: Is Anything Safe to Drink?"
newser:"Diet Soda's Dark Side: Heart Attacks, Strokes"
ABC: "Diet Soda: Fewer Calories, Greater Stroke Risk?"
The irony here is that when you go on to watch the ABC news clip, their expert actually says "This is one of the worst studies I've seen capturing headlines" but you wouldn't get that based on their headline, unless that is what the question mark is supposed to indicate. Ahh, subtle.
To be fair, quite a few of the articles do at least mention at some point that more research is needed, but when you read their tweet, or browse their homepage headline that isn't clear.
On the other hand, I was pleasantly surprised when JLK at Pieces of Me pointed out what a great job the LA Times did with headlining the truth.
"Diet soda and heart, stroke risk: A link doesn't prove cause and effect"
That is the way to do it. Nice job LA Times!
This post has been viewed: 463 time(s)
 |
 |
I agree that the headlines you highlight are all problematic, especially given the ambiguous meaning of the word "linked." CBS and newser look like they're intentionally sensationalizing it; either that or they don't understand science very well.
Having said that... print publications are often dealing with extreme restrictions in headline length, and generally speaking, they simply put their print versions online without changes because they lack the manpower to tailor the online version to the medium.
As an example, let's take the USA Today headline, "Study: Diet soda linked to heart risks." The rules outlined at this link explain how I'm counting:
http://www.tpub.com/content/photography/14130/css/14130_164.htm
That headline is 34.5 units long. So let's be generous and say that the layout editor required something that was at most 36 units long. Can you come up with something 36 units long that is informative yet accurate? I haven't tried, so I'm not saying that it can't be done. I just thought it was worth pointing out (in case you didn't know -- perhaps you already do!) the constraints under which even the well-meaning and knowledgeable newspaper journalist works.
Personally, I think the real problem is that this story is being reported at all. Medical research is over-reported, which leads to intermediary findings receiving publicity, which leads in turn to people perceiving medical research as a body of contradictory findings, which leads to a loss of confidence in science as a whole.
Sure I see your point, but the phrase "Is anything safe to drink?" Really? How exactly is that necessary in the headline for this story. With even less words you can be a lot more clear that it isn't a PROVEN risk.
How about:
"Diet Soda: A potential heart risk" or
"Diet Soda may increase stroke risk (early study finds)"
"Stoke Risks and Diet Soda: A possible link"
"Early investigation of Diet Soda and Heart Risks"
Simple words like POSSIBLE, POTENTIAL and MAY help moderate the headline. The black and white "link" or "tied to" is what I dislike.
That being said, I totally agree with your final point. I agree it never should have been reported in the first place. Double edged sword I suppose. Scientists are encouraged to make their work relatable. The media is a great way to generate interest and support for research, but it needs to be reported in a responsible way (both by the investigator and by the science writers).
Scientists are criticized for being inaccessible and not making advances fast enough. The problem comes when small advances are blown out of proportion in the name of a good story.
Guest Comment