Ooooh. Scary. We should rush out and buy some calcium supplements straight off.Although Americans have improved their calcium intake in recent years, we're still not getting enough to maintain our bone health.
Or should we? This is from the fourth graph of the story:
The Institute of Medicine notes that most in the US get enough calcium except for girls 9 to 18 years old.
So which is it? Or is the "we're" in we're still not getting enough referring only to 9 to 17 year-old girls? The article is written by a woman, but since it is unlikely she's between those ages, and since its not a women's or girl's magazine, I'd assume the "we're" refers to the previous "Americans have improved" line.
I suppose you could argue that calcium is a bigger issue for women, especially at that age when bone is being grown and cemented for later on in life, and thus that the "we're" is referring to women in the group with the largest risk of calcium deficiency. But if that's the case, the "Americans have improved" should probably be "America women have improved."
Someone (the writer? the editor?) messed up here. And it wouldn't be such a big issue if plenty of health-scare/drug-scare stories didn't often have holes this big in them.
I recently saw a leading line in an LA Times article in which they misspelled president as presindet. Obviously a simple typo, but it was front page business (only online, but still, it's a big company).
ReplyDeleteI know mistakes get through sometimes, and I know more get through online, where you are normally more rushed to get things posted and there is less worry since you can go back and fix your mistake. It still frustrates me.
Also, I'm not sure how much editing things on WebMD go through. That seems like a pretty big whoops to miss (both the use of we're and the inconsistency with who is getting enough calcium).