Prohibition in print? Spinning the Bottle In the last Daily Dose, I reveled in some recent research (figures, it wasn't from the U.S.) that all but proves yet again what I've been saying for a long time: A daily drink or two is great for your health… But you'd never know this from the treatment alcohol gets in the mainstream American press, for the most part. Here's just one example of what I'm talking about: According to a recent Reuters article (a source I used to think was a pretty well-balanced outlet for health information), a 2005 review of multiple human and animal studies has spotlighted a link between heavy drinking and bone loss. Now, this is not news - it's a fact that anyone with any medical knowledge at all already knows is a common consequence of alcoholism… However, the Reuters piece doesn't mention "alcoholism" in its headline! Instead, the headline warns: "Study shows how alcohol damages bones." Not: "Study shows alcoholics at risk for bone loss," or "Research points to link between alcoholism and bone damage," nor anything as downright accurate and journalistically responsible as all that. No, they've got to try and scare anyone who imbibes into becoming a teetotaler for fear of brittle bones! Now, wouldn't anyone skimming the headlines conclude from this that merely DRINKING ALCOHOL harms the bones? Of course they would, and that's clearly the picture the Reuters scribes want readers to see, even though it isn't true - not by a long shot. And the Reuters people know it, too. How do I know this? Because the article's original source research was published in a journal called Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research - a fact not disclosed until the 3rd paragraph of the Reuters story. And readers don't get to the real truth of the matter until all the way down in the fourth paragraph, with this grudging admission: "Some studies have suggested that moderate drinking may actually help protect bone mass - possibly because small amounts of alcohol promote new bone formation." Quite a different picture than what the headline screams at us, huh? Keep reading… **************************************************** What's my point in mentioning this puritanical spin on the part of the mainstream press? To show you that the "health news" we're getting from the establishment media is suspect right down to its smarmy, holier-than-thou, paternalistic core. Of course, I've known this for decades - just like I've known that moderate alcohol consumption is good for the bones. I'm sorry if this comes as a shock to you, but if you've been a reader of mine for any length of time at all, it really shouldn't… Then again, if you've been a reader of mine, you've been reading one of the few sources that'll actually give you the straight scoop about health matters. So you're way ahead in that department, aren't you? But I digress. If there's a lesson in all this, it's this: The mainstream press needs BAD NEWS to report. It's what sells the most papers and gets the most clicks online (or drives the most traffic to advertisements). Nobody buys a newspaper or clicks on a news Web site to find out what's right with the world. Headlines don't scream in 100-point type: EVERYTHING'S FINE TODAY! This is a truism of reporting, and it's why the establishment media will always find ways of recycling non-news (like the fact that alcoholics risk brittle, unhealthy bones) or spinning good news in ways that will get our attention and make us afraid. Unfortunately, this fundamental truth of the news world is more important to most of the media than the ACTUAL truth… So take it all with a grain of salt - or a stiff drink. Know what I mean? Always drinking (moderately!) while I'm thinking, William Campbell Douglass II, MD | 
