Well, not really a shocking finding. The majority of science related stories are now written by reporters without any formal training in science. Financial difficulties have meant cut backs, and science reporting is kind of like art and music classes that get cut from tight education budgets.
So, Ben Goldacre and his co-authors looked at all of the articles offering dietary advice for the ten UK newspapers with the most circulation, in a randomly selected week. To evaluate the evidence supporting advice given in newspaper articles, they used two ratings criteria: one developed by World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), and another by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).
The results were very lopsided; of the 111 articles in the sample, 72% (WCRF) had levels of evidence below what would be considered probable or convincing.
Only 15% would be considered convincing. That is appallingly low.
So, Ben Goldacre and his co-authors looked at all of the articles offering dietary advice for the ten UK newspapers with the most circulation, in a randomly selected week. To evaluate the evidence supporting advice given in newspaper articles, they used two ratings criteria: one developed by World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), and another by the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN).
The results were very lopsided; of the 111 articles in the sample, 72% (WCRF) had levels of evidence below what would be considered probable or convincing.
Only 15% would be considered convincing. That is appallingly low.
