This article does a particularly good job of presenting both sides of the issue. I've read a printed article on the same study by another publication (local newspaper via a wire service), and this showed must more context, fairness and balance in offering opposing point of view (the point of view of those that feel the study is of limited usefulness. The story is about mammogram's limited usefulness).
I worry about excessive exposure to radiation. Standards for everyone, even those with no prior history or family history, require yearly screenings starting at age 40 and every year thereafter through the age of 60, continuing up to age 70 on a less frequent basis. The old standard was one at age 40, then another at age 45 continuing yearly, I don't recall for how long.
Of course, the protocol should be different for those with family or prior history of breast cancer, or other ... More »
I do think this is good journalism simply because it speaks about a topic that is extremely relevant and important in today's world. On the other hand it seems very single sided and does not exactly give an answer to what everyone should do. It states that mammograms are not as helpful as anyone thinks and in many ways tries to make them out as bad things but at the same time it states they are still reducing the death rate so I don't see how that can be a bad thing; even if it isn't as effective as we think. The story asks a lot of questions and give few answers which was somewhat of a turn off from the story for me.
Reporter covered story in a practical manner so that the audience could understand the medical study. However, there was little about the consequences of this research. For example, knowing that mammograms are not all that useful, what should be done? Also, no one ever said that mammograms treat breast cancer, only that they detect it. We need to know the disease before we can go about treating it. How many women are diagnosed with breast cancer every year? How does this information conflict/relate to the information given in this article? Many questions are left unanswered, but the information given is well documented.
a.The article wasn't as fair as I would have liked it to be. It only talked about how mammograms are good for a women's health in the long run, but it didn't talk about women who can't pay for a mammogram of have the priveledge of taking one. Otherwise the article had good information and is factual.
b. Like I said, I feel it wasn't as in depth as I would have but it was enterprising.
c. No it left me satisfied with the information it gave me.
d. I think it might increase the awareness of mammograms and therefore more women are more likely to take mammograms.
e.There was no racial element to the story.