Should You Avoid Controversial "Health News" Articles?
There are basically two types of health news articles (if looking at it from both ends of the spectrum): the namby-pamby, "make-you-feel-good" pieces and the hardcore, digging-for-trouble investigative journalistic exposes. The first may be compared to appetizers and dessert during a meal; the second to a salad and the main entrees.
While the former may be wonderful to consume (since they greatly titillate the palate), the second is ultimately more essential, even if it may not impart as much pleasure and fun. Who, for example, enjoys a bowl of broccoli or spinach more than a slice of pie a la mode? If you only eat appetizers and dessert, though, you will reap unpleasant consequences.
The same may be said if you only read articles that make you feel good, that never delve into controversial or depressing issues, or that make you think that everyone warning you of a pending disaster must be wrong, lying, misinformed or selfishly sensationalistic.
Just as you should eat a balanced diet (sometimes inclusive of things that don't necessarily thrill you), you need to read a well-diversified variety of health news articles. Even the most sensationalistic and poorly-defended articles contain some useful information. In fact, you will probably find that, since all articles contain some measure of opinion and speculation (including from so-called "experts), there is no such a thing as a 100% factual article. If anything, this should compel you to utilize evaluative skills whenever you read.
Why Are Controversial Health News Articles Necessary?
Other than helping you get a well-balanced news "diet," controversial health news articles can bring to your attention things that the mainstream media may often be afraid to tackle; actually, so-called "mainstream media" is itself sometimes accused of depending too much on controversial topics. For good or bad, the public appears to like controversy, albeit not all types of controversy. There are some controversial issues which the mainstream media appears to take sides on (even though that is a no-no in good journalism)--even when too many legitimate questions remain unanswered.
The way mainstream media has handled the suspected vaccine/autism connection is a good example. People who continue to assert that maybe there is a connection are often ridiculed. The sources that are cited in these attacks are the many studies that have supposedly completely ruled out any such connection. What you are not told, though, is that the scientists that conducted most (if not all) of these studies work for universities, government agencies or pharmaceutical companies that have a vested monetary interest in vaccines.
The studies that they allude to, furthermore, don't necessarily exonerate vaccines--they just fail to prove a definite connection. These same types of studies (paid and overseen by tobacco companies) were used for decades to debunk fears that tobacco caused lung cancer; we now know that the sponsors and overseers (some of them respected scientists) of these tobacco safety studies were either lying or wrong in the conclusions they published--so much for unassailable scientific studies!
Establishing correlation between a cause and a disease is very expensive and complicated; additionally, too many facts still abound that suggest a connection: the fact that autism rates increased as use of vaccines increased; the fact that a preservative used in vaccines for years, thimerosal (the main ingredient of which is mercury), is suspected of causing brain damage; the fact that the studies alluded to were produced by the CDC, FDA, or universities getting funds from the government or vaccine-producing (and, therefore, profiting from) pharmaceutical companies; the fact that the US government admits it is 100% uncertain as to what is causing the autism epidemic--how can you be 100% unsure of a cause but 100% sure it's not the preservatives in vaccines? etc.
Sometimes, it is only through controversial health news articles that people get the whole story for major debates in public health and healthcare.
Yet another example is the use of ammonia as a preservative in ground beef. Yes, the human body can safely process a certain amount of ammonia but the problem is that we all have a toxicity limitation threshold. This "threshold" is further compromised by the total amount of toxins we are forced (through processed foods, fluoridated water, radiation from man-made sources, pollution, etc.) to consume/imbibe on a daily basis.
That little bit of ammonia from ground beef may not kill you (at least not right away) but when you add it to the other dozens of toxic substances (MSG, BPA, hydrogenated oils, nitrates, food coloring chemicals, etc.) we are all forced (especially if we eat processed and fast foods and drink tap water) to be exposed to, then the matter takes on a totally new picture. The overall amalgamation of toxins--that is what we need to focus on.
Now consider radiation. Yes, we are all exposed to natural amounts of radiation from space (cosmic and solar radiation) and argon gas (present in many homes, by the way). The idea, though, is to not add to that already existing source of danger, such as through the over-use of medical imaging or, what is worse, the TSA forcing every American who gets on a plane to undergo X-rays, foods being irradiated against our will/desire, or toxic waste often being found in water/land used by many unsuspecting Americans.
For the record, radiation accumulates in our bodies and has the potential to create long-term cellular damage; in many cases, in fact, it is carcinogenic. A writer is bound to get abusive feedback by tackling this one of many controversial issues but, does it do anyone any good to just ignore these dangers? Don't people have an inherent right to know of any potential dangers lurking around them? At times, some articles unnecessarily alarm people of dangers that turn out to be less significant than suggested; nevertheless, readers can do their own research, once a warning has been put out.
If only one or two writers bring up a problem--maybe the matter is not as important as they claim. But if many writers, educators and scientists keep alluding to a pending/existing dilemma, then attention needs to be paid. That is one of the roles bad/controversial health news articles can play.
Is There a Way to Sort out Which Articles Are Useful and Which Are Inane?
Following this article are several sources that may be checked out in this regard. Purdue University (4th reference below), for example, has some very useful guidelines for gauging the usefulness of hopefully informative articles. The important thing to note is that, as has been stated, every article (except maybe for those sites/publications with absolutely not credibility left to speak of) has at least some useful information to impart. It is up to you (as a well-informed reader) to sort things out.
Sticking your head in the sand (by simply avoiding articles and publications that brazenly delve into controversial or even unpopular topics/views) is not the way to go. Nor is it advisable that you only read articles that never question the government, the scientific establishment, or so-called "well-established facts." For several hundred years, students were taught that the earth was a cube and that, if you sailed off into the ocean, you would just plunge into nothingness; the same students were never told that microorganisms were responsible for most of the diseases that killed people before the 1900s. Both of these "established" facts/views were 100% wrong.
Are there established facts today that 5, 10 or 20 years from now we will learn were mere educated guesses that will turn out to be 100% wrong?
Then there is the issue of fostering meaningful discussion and health education among the populace. Health news articles seem to do a very good job of that, although, for some reason, people may still get things wrong. For the articles I wrote on Ebola and the 1918 flu pandemic, for example, feedback from readers has demonstrated misunderstandings of scientific facts.
The mode of disease transmission of viruses is a glaring example. I had 2 readers insist that viruses don't change mode of transmission but that is not correct. The pandemic of 1918 was caused by a virus that, apparently, had changed its mode of transmission from a hitherto mild form to a more virulent strain. Furthermore, by definition a zoonotic virus is a virus that changes its mode of transmission from animals to human beings. Just because something is rare does not mean it's impossible.
Also, when scientists say that they are generally not aware of human-affecting viruses changing mode of transmission, it's understood this does not include viruses that may have been tampered with genetically, that have yet to be discovered, or that may undergo mutation not yet observed for one of the hundreds of strains in existence. Such assertions, furthermore, do not contradict what "zoonotic" basically means.
Viruses, although they generally don't change mode of transmission, are capable of changing such--sometimes drastically, either by mutation or genetic tampering. In fact, every time a virus infects a new host, all kinds of new genetic possibilities arise. Viruses not only invade cells--they also interact and blend with the RNA (or DNA, for weaker, easier-controlled viruses) of infected victims. There is no way to predict what changes may be wrought by this interaction at the cellular level.
In evaluating articles, find out the educational/professional background of the writer; also ascertain how the writer is backing up what he/she says. A good article always provides verifiable references/resources from well-respected sources (not necessarily all from mainstream media).
Conclusion
By all means, read a variety of health news articles, including some that delve into controversial issues. Those writers that strive to always play it safe may be popular but they are often not the ones that are labeled as "news-breaking" or that bring to your attention things that may impact your life, in spite of not getting much attention from traditional news sources.
As a general rule, controversial topics upset some people, especially if they have a vested interest in what is being questioned or challenged. In a perfect world, corporate America, government agencies and the scientific community would always tell you the truth and tell you what is in your best interest. In the real, world, however, it's up to journalists and writers to question or report on what doesn't make sense, what some unpopular scientists are challenging, and what piling scientific evidence (even if only anecdotal) suggests.
Controversial/bad health news articles may upset you (especially if they say the opposite of what authorities in the government or science say) but, to be frank, journalism is not just about entertainment or making you feel good. Good journalism educates and informs.
Whether the topic in question is controversial is, at best, a subjective determination; what should matter is not whether an article is controversial but whether it prompts you to take action, become better informed, and perhaps even bring something to your attention that ultimately threatens your health and the health of those you love.
Copyright, 2014. Fred Fletcher. All rights reserved.
References & Resources
1. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli
2. http://inspirationboost.com/8-reasons-why-reading-is-so-important
3. http://homeworktips.about.com/od/paperassignments/a/Trustworthy-Sources.htm
4. https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/553/03/
5. http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga95/VARIETY.HTM
Related Keywords
