Writing coach Mervin Block, author of “Writing Broadcast News — Shorter, Sharper, Stronger” and several other books, offers writing tips at MervinBlock.com. The following is the first section of a longer article on network news health coverage:
Television commercials for heartburn, back pain and overactive bladder aren’t the worst ailments afflicting network newscasts. Most of us probably take the commercials with a grain of salt. But if you examine some of the evening newscasts’ medical stories, you may want to start taking them with a gram of salt.Why the skepticism? Because some of the medical stories we’ll look at are inaccurate, some are misleading, and some suffer from other disorders. The transcripts are reprinted here in their entirety, except as noted:
“The surprising results are out tonight from one of this country’s longest-running medical studies. The study finds 90 percent of older Americans already have or can expect to develop high blood pressure. Researchers note that millions of people with high blood pressure are not getting treated for it or do not have it under control.” (CBS, Feb. 26, 2002)
Never use the word miracle. Leave that to ministers, mayonnaise-makers and sportswriters. Don’t use breakthrough. Breakthroughs are infrequent, and the word breakthrough, like controversy, is so overused that it has lost much of its impact. Avoid cure. Announcements of cures are rare, and they must be handled with utmost care. But there’s one cure that’s simple, one you can help bring about: the cure of hype. May doesn’t mean will. Suggests or indicates doesn’t mean finds or proves. Contributes to, is associated with, or is linked to does not mean causes. If you have time, download the study you’re writing about or the original news release and see what’s what for yourself. One study by itself seldom proves anything. So don’t treat the results of a study as the last word. Identify the source of the story. If you start like this, “A new study says,” then in your next sentence, identify the publication or institution: “The Institute of Cranial Exploration says its study looked into…” And proceed carefully. Don’t be an alarmist. Don’t exaggerate. Don’t speculate. Cogitate. You can’t believe everything you read, but you should believe everything you write. — Merv Block
Surprising? For whom? Careful writers don’t characterize news as surprising, or disturbing, or amazing, or shocking, or good, or bad. Or label news in any way.
Most important, though, the script is wrong. One goal of that long-range study was to see how many of the subjects would develop high blood pressure. Contrary to what the script said about 90 percent of older Americans, that the study found some have high blood pressure, the study’s co-author, Dr. Ramachandran S. Vasan of the Boston University School of Medicine, told me the study didn’t accept anyone who already had high blood pressure. The figure of 90 percent applied only to an estimate of the risk of developing high blood pressure.
Older Americans? The AP account called them “middle-age Americans.” If an age (55) had been used in the script, many viewers and the anchor himself might have considered the subjects of the study not older Americans but younger Americans. On top of all that, the first sentence in the script is blah. “Results are out tonight” is weak because are doesn’t express action. Are and is are linking verbs; all they do is link, not move. Example: “Grass is green.” But you do get movement when you say, “The grass is growing.” There, is doesn’t link; it serves as an auxiliary or helping verb. Linking verbs merely say the subject of the sentence is something. That’s true of any form of to be. (But don’t touch Hamlet’s soliloquy.)
As a result of saying results are out in the script, the first sentence is not newsy. Better: “A new study says…” Not great, but better. If you say something is out, you raise questions: but is it new? Did it come out today? How long has it been out?
Air time is precious. If a story is important enough to use on a network newscast, listeners should be told exactly who conducted the study. I don’t mean the name of the wire service or other news agency. I want to know who conducted the study. Or, if it was published, the name of the journal. Would you accept medical advice — or information — from someone who’s anonymous?
On the night that script was broadcast, another network evening newscast carried the same story, the only instance in this random review when more than one network evening newscast ran the same medical story:
“The Journal of the American Medical Association reports this week that Americans 55 years and older face a staggering 90 percent chance of developing high blood pressure in their lifetime. High blood pressure, or hypertension, is a major risk factor for heart disease and for stroke, which together account for more than a third of all deaths in the country.” (ABC, Feb. 26, 2002)
As in the first script, there’s no hint that the 90 percent chance is an estimate; Americans may face those odds. And may doesn’t mean will. The AP account, which probably served as the basis for the broadcast scripts, used estimates in its first sentence. But neither of those scripts used estimates or an equivalent.
Why this week? And why did the script call the odds staggering? Perhaps because the AP had quoted the Secrerary of Health and Human Services as using that word. In their lifetime? When else? Better: “…chance of eventually developing high blood pressure.” Neither script bothered with the AP story’s second sentence: “But experts say many can still beat the odds with diet and exercise.”
Next case:
“Research into the common cold has yielded an uncommon finding. It appears a glass of wine a day — especially red wine — may help prevent colds. Authors of the study say they have no idea why. But they have found stress raises risk for catching colds.” (CBS, May 1, 2002)
Can you tell what’s wrong with that script? What questions does it raise in your mind? The article continues at Mervin Block’s website.
