Miss Takes

Posting again about yesterday's error because my comment got a little long:

The misspelling is unacceptable (especially in today's world of spellcheck; unless "presindet" is a word). As an editor I'm sure that is what sticks in my commentor's craw the most.

For me, though, its the content. Spelling mistakes, regretablly, happen. But either we are getting enough calcium or we aren't. To say we aren't, and then quote a reputable source as saying we are, well, what should I believe - and is the article worth anything?

This error actually smells of writer bias to me: the "we don't get enough" line was probably written as the story idea/hook, then the author found out that, oops, we actually do get enough. Both lines stayed in the story. Its just sad that either the author and editor missed it, or left it in because the "shortage" line creates drama.

This happens in drug stories A LOT, too. Legit news outlets run stories about "Pill Parties" where kids just bring pills, put them in a bowl, and then pass the bowl around. None of the stories ever have a witness account by either the journalist or a student. And yet they publish them - mostly based on a "crazy drugged out kids" meme that isn't true and in the case of Pill Parties certainly has no evidence to back it up. But the author follows this bias, possibly without even knowing it exists, without thinking about the flaws in this story. And the flaws go way, WAY, beyond not having a real source outside of other news stories and third hand reports. Just think about what would have to occur for this type of conduct to exist. It just doesn't make sense if you think about it for more than two minutes.

Writing and editing failure

A WebMD story featured this as its second sentence:

Although Americans have improved their calcium intake in recent years, we're still not getting enough to maintain our bone health.

Ooooh. Scary. We should rush out and buy some calcium supplements straight off.

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.