Readers’ Representative Column
Kansas City Star
Published in Bradenton HeraldJan. 22, 2006
Student was not holding a ‘fake’ gun
By Derek DonovanSeveral readers contacted me to comment on a headline they found misleading last Sunday.
In a Jan. 15 story, The Associated Press wrote about Florida teenager Christopher Penley, who was shot by a SWAT team member after threatening fellow students and police with a pellet gun. Christopher later died from his wounds.
The story began with an assertion from the Penley family’s attorney, contending that the boy’s parents had told police the gun “probably was fake.” The Star’s headline read, “Police were told gun was fake.” Four different readers, from two very different viewpoints, objected to choosing to quote the word “fake” in the headline.
“I am an avowed, committed gun opponent,” one told me. “They should all be melted down into manhole covers. And may I point out that a pellet gun is not by any means ‘fake.’ It might not be as powerful as a Beretta, but it can still kill you.”
Other readers, both identifying themselves as National Rifle Association members, said the same.
“I know journalists aren’t going to go spend much time on the firing range,” one caller said. “But there’s nothing safer than an air gun for shooting pests on a farm. And my kids have known since they were old enough to hold one that they can hurt someone just as easily with a pellet or even a BB as they can with a shotgun round.”
Both callers were absolutely correct. Many air guns shoot a soft metal pellet that spreads upon impact, and some hunters use high-powered air guns for small game by preference.
Air guns don’t use an explosive round, but they are certainly not “fake” guns.
On Jan. 14, The Star’s Rick Montgomery wrote about pitfalls of the peer review process in scientific research papers. The story explored how several high-profile stories about science could ultimately turn out to be flawed or even fraudulent, like Hwang Woo-suk’s phony human stem-cell study results.
“Great article,” said a caller Monday morning, who identified himself as Phil. “I think The Star lets us down with science. You report the flavor of the week as earth-shattering news, before you contradict it all a month later. But look at your FYI section the same day here. I will be clipping this article and keeping it in my book for when you tell us it was all wrong later on.”
Phil was referring to a wire story about trans fatty acids (trans fats for short) on Page F-6. The story acknowledged that the public has heard a lot of “dietary about-faces” in recent years, but then focused on trans fats as “the most sinister fats lurking in the American cupboard.”
Reporter Julie Deardorff of the Chicago Tribune even went so far as to answer the question “Shouldn’t we just ban trans fats altogether?” with a definitive yes.
“That’s an awfully major public-policy statement for a newspaper reporter,” said Phil.
I agree completely.
Many readers have told me they almost reflexively distrust stories about new drug treatments and nutrition advice, because they have seen so many supposed breakthroughs that eventually don’t pan out.
Ira R. Allen, vice president of public affairs for the Center for the Advancement of Health, wrote The Star concerning a wire story Thursday about David Katz’s The Flavor Point Diet. Allen’s organization is a nonprofit agency whose mission is “to translate health research into better policy and practice.” I telephoned Allen, who echoed a common reader concern about how science news is reported.
“Science isn’t magic,” he said. “There’s not one solution. It’s an incremental, step by step (process) of systematic evidence reviews. … In this case, the story says his [Katz’s] study is based on 20 people over 12 weeks.”
He makes an excellent point. Twenty persons make up a very small sample. And as the story notes, Katz is a columnist for Oprah Winfrey’s magazine and is selling a book based on his plan.
Journalists often pursue stories about seemingly successful medical breakthroughs because readers consistently express interest in health and science topics. But journalists don’t all have experience in medicine and science themselves, and they sometimes don’t question a study’s breadth and sourcing closely enough.
“It’s the duty of journalists to explain the caveats of a study,” Allen said.
He’s right. Reporters and editors should remain inquisitive, even skeptical, of all assertions, whether they come from corporations or scientists.
As Montgomery’s story pointed out, usually the scientific process eventually discovers when a researcher’s original results aren’t valid. Journalists shouldn’t play a role in fanning the flames of excitement prematurely.
Ira Allen
President, Public Affairs
Center for the Advancement of Health
Washington, DC
