At the risk of stirring up some trouble I think (as a usually quiet ABSW
journalist-type person) that this is a clear case of subtle statistics
abuse. I realise the figures and the statements are absolutely correct, but
it seems obvious that many readers will form an immediate impression of
major and scary risks where in fact those risks and their increases, spelt
out in actual terms, would not evoke anything like the shock that the
headlines will. Moderate concern would be more appropriate.
My feeling is that this fact will have been either consciously or
subconsciously understood and exploited by the editors in order to sell more
papers.
Vanessa
(ducking to avoid onslaught!)
--
Vanessa Spedding
Science & technology journalist and editor
Tel: 0117 939 3141
Email: [log in to unmask]
--
On 10/7/02 9:20 am, "Ward, Bob" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I wonder whether anybody has any thoughts about today's coverage of the
> study into the risks associated with the use of Prempro, a type of hormone
> replacement therapy. Let us use 'The Times' as an example. The front page
> headline is:
>
> HRT is linked to breast cancer: US study is halted after health fears rise;
> Patients suffer 41% increase in stroke risk; 22% increase in risk of heart
> disease
>
....
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|