Media Reviews
EHS scientists and fellows critique media coverage.
Lung cancer gene discovery.
BBC's short report puts discovery in perspective but is overly focused on tobacco.
Pork problems.
The recent recall of Irish pork was driven by dioxin contamination, though several media outlets incorrectly referred to these chemicals as 'PCBs.'
Simply stunning.
The USA Today series "Toxic Air and America’s Schools" (beginning 8 December 2008) is simply stunning in its scope and breadth.
Unscientific reassurances.
Widespread coverage of a report by the US Geological Survey on contamination in tap water could have done a better job at challenging the Survey’s reassurances that the exposures are safe.
Missing the environmental angle.
Four out of five of the nation’s top newspapers missed a key point about the state of the science when they covered an important new report that found cancer rates have declined for the first time.
What about contaminants?
In an otherwise superb investigative report on labeling failures and lax oversight by government agencies on allergens in food, a story in the Chicago Tribune overlooks the potential role of contaminants in contributing to surging allergies in the US.
Covering complexities of nanomaterials.
Two major British news sources presented balanced views of a new report outlining the risks and benefits of nanoparticles.
Diabetes story misses key angle.
In a feature story about the dramatic growth of diabetes in India, the BBC completely ignores emerging evidence of the role of contamination in causing the disease.
Moderation in pregnancy is perhaps a more realistic and useful message.
A Los Angeles Times article tries to make sense of results from two recently published studies that again challenge assumptions about the safety of moderate alcohol and caffeine use during pregnancy.
Epigenetics on the Today Show?
This may be the first time NBC's Today Show has ever tried to distinguish between gene inheritance and gene expression and begun to explore how human health might be affected by epigenetic changes.
A one-sided story.
A New York Times reporter presents the dental association's view of BPA in tooth sealants but misses the chance to explain more fully the controversy surrounding the chemical's safety.
Putting a study's model system into perspective.
Getting to know the model system used in a scientific study is often the key to understanding the broader implication of its findings.
Was the fix in?
Investigative reporting by the Journal Sentinel (Milwaukee) raises some disquieting questions about conflicts of interest in FDA's review of bisphenol A.
Part of a much larger story.
While Dr. Shanna Swan's newest data on phthalates and baby boys, published last week in Environmental Research, garnered significant and deserved attention, the publication contained several other important papers in a special section the journal chose to call "Plastic World" which attracted almost no media attention.
Connect the dots.
Reporters who work one story at a time need help from scientists to see the broader context.
The missed electric moment
No one has reported on what was probably the single most important moment at the FDA hearing on BPA.
FDA's inconsistent message on BPA
In public statements to the media, FDA officials are spreading contradictory messages.
Science News gets it right on bisphenol A
Science News writer Rachel Ehrenberg gets it right in her reporting on a new study that uses human data to link bisphenol A to heart attacks and type 2 diabetes. But she might have spent a bit more time on one key finding that helps understand why the FDA is having so much trouble with BPA science.
Reporting on contaminants and health in Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel
Over the past year, the JS has been publishing a remarkable series of stories about contamination, health and politics. And they just keep coming!
