Skip to main content


A tale of two media reports


Recent BBC news article on Links between fizzy drinks and cancer.
Are sugary drinks causing cancer?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-48939671
To Quote "
Is this definitive proof?

No - the way the study was designed means it can spot patterns in the data but cannot explain them."

Compare this to the Daily Mail article

Just ONE drink of fruit juice or sugary tea a day can dramatically increase the risk of cancer, major study suggests

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-7233909/Daily-drink-fruit-juice-increase-risk-cancer-12-major-study-suggests.html


I am aware that the daily mail has a tenancy sensationalise reports and over state things, but surely if all this is from the SAME science paper one should be able to draw a very similar conclusion, or better still how about the media at least quote the conclusions from these science papers / reports

What chance do the rest of us have.
#bbc (x) #cancer (x) #dailymail (x) #drinks (x) #media (x) #misleading (x) #newspapers (x) #report (x) #risk (x) #uk (x)

One has to recognize clickbait headlines I think - and those outlets should be told you're not going back to their site because of all the intrusive advertising, clickbait headlines, and whatever other nonsense they've put in all in the name of "plz come visit our adz!".

Well that headline was the front page of the printed issue too, not sure how 2 sources seem to come up with the opposite in terms of conclusions.

Isn't the latter more geared toward the sensationalizing anyway?

Yeah, I just find it irritating when the press fail to report things properly, then go on about fake news or try and warn people on click bait or how bad Wikipedia is (in some cases) for accuracy. If they are that concerned get some decent journalists and set an example.

I'm totally with you on that.