“It’s important to know [that these potentially dangerous chemicals are found in kids products],” Arnold Schecter, a public health physician at the University of Texas School of Public Health in Dallas, told Sohn. “And the next important thing is to find out how frequent this is, what levels are there and what sort of risk this poses. The big question is: What is the toxicity? And how much is getting into children?”
Those are good questions, basic hazard and exposure Risk Reporting 101 details necessary to help a reader make an informed judgment about the core question: is there a risk, and how much? But in many risk-related stories, those key details never show up, or they get buried at the end of the story after all the scarier more attention-getting stuff comes first.
I know journalists want attention for their work. I was an environmental reporter for years and did stuff just like this. But I also know that journalists want to get the basic facts right, and leaving out critical details like this is simply incomplete reporting. And no journalist wants their work to do any harm. But by alarming, without also fully informing, the choices the reader makes
about what products to use or what to eat or how to behave about all sorts of things
will be based on a dangerously incomplete picture.

Thank you. Between the article and its links, any teacher who wants a text book case study on risk reporting has it in FLAME RETARDANTS RAISE UNDUE ALARM. Add the stories in the links and it is a teaching jewel.
#1 Posted by peter m herford, CJR on Mon 23 May 2011 at 10:03 PM