Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonnevie
sorry, I just don't understand the outrage here....if you don't want to read the whole article, just read the first paragraph. The most important facts should be at the beginning..
|
You probably would understand the "outrage" if you could see the "type-size" of the headline. There would easily be enough room for 3 times as many words in the heading. The overall column width took up 2/3 of the page with only 6 words in the heading. The adjoining column that only took up 1/3 of the page had ten words in the heading (i.e., less room but more words).
Reading the first paragraph would not have revealed the all important information. It didn't come until the seventh paragraph.
This column is only one isolated example. I have another one about protein. This column had the following heading in quite large bold print:
"High-protein diets: Bad for the middle-aged, good for the elderly"
The first part of the heading (according to the study) is true, but the second half is untrue.
Again, you would have to read down to the seventh paragraph to get to the all important information. The recommendation, by the author of the study, is for those elderly who are "entering a period of growing frailty". The study indicated a need for a "higher intake" of protein, with a preference for plant based protein. Contrary to what the heading implied, there was no call for all elderly people to eat high protein diets. "Higher intake" does not constitute a "high protein diet". "Higher intake" means getting adequate protein.
The heading couldn't have been more misleading.