Read More of the Same Day's Blog

The staggering decline in the incidence of breast cancer led all three network newscasts. The drop-off happened three years ago but it was still newsworthy because it was so steep--and because it had a likely known cause. Some 14,000 fewer women had tumors in 2003, mostly because they had stopped taking estrogen supplements. NBC's Brian Williams was so pleased: "There is very good news on the subject of breast cancer."

NBC's Robert Bazell called halting estrogen supplements "an obvious cause" of the 7% year-over-year decline. ABC's John McKenzie showed us the monthly timeline: "within just weeks" of women being instructed to halt Hormone Replacement Therapy, the cancer incidence started to drop.

Williams is correct. It is always pleasant to be able to report good news. But this eagerness left gaping holes in the coverage.

What about the bad news? How many post-menopausal women contracted breast cancer because they took HRT before 2002? How many of them died as a result? Why were doctors prescribing a potential killer? What made them think it was safe? What pharmaceutical companies benefited from pushing HRT? What other similar supplements are used nowadays with similar potential safety problems?

Just because the glass is half full, journalists should not avoid reporting that it is half empty.

Andrew Tyndall 12/15/06 3:52:20 pm

© 2010 Tyndall Report