So I'm reading Tuesday's NYT Science supplement (a regular feature of the NYT, and among its most popular - although according to frequent and excellent contributor Natalie Angier it gets no respect from the higher powers at the Grey Lady), and for the umpteenth time this month am struck by what appears to be the latest rippling advance of a miserable wave: Fox balance has eaten its way into another henhouse of reason, of reportage on simple physical reality, of straight up science news.
Here's one of the latest, above the fold on the back page the top story is sent to, page 6, top story under "Global Update", the tag is "cholera".
The headline is: "Climate Change Isn't a Culprit in Increasing Outbreaks, Study Finds".
The content is: a common hope by modelers that warmer surface waters at river mouths would suppress cholera outbreaks has been disappointed. The waters are warmer, but cholera has increased and spread to new regions.
The apparent reason? Satellite photos show increased rainfall volume and increased glacial melting upstream, feeding into the source streams. This increased flow volume and violence seems to be washing down more plankton food and consequent cholera germ substrate from the upstream watershed.
So it's markedly increased river flow from boosted rainfall volumes and higher rates of glacial melting, not "Climate Change", that is to blame.
To be sure no one misses that point, it is put into the headline as a "finding" of the study, is reasserted in the first paragraph, and is repeated in the text.
Another one, same issue, the much read "Health" subsection on D5, top story.
The headline reads: "Many Health Plans, Many Hours Spent Haggling"
The content features a description of various features of the very large hassle and expense all US patients, doctors, nurses, clinics, and hospitals must endure from having to deal with so many insurance corporations, each with its own complex rules and forms, each with its own lawyers and executives dedicated to squeezing clinics and patients and enforcing the minutiae of its contracts and stipulations. The estimated cost is $80,000 per physician per year, just on the medical care delivery side. More than 20 hours per week.
But the study being reported, the basis of the article, was actually a point by point comparison of US setup overhead with Canada's. Although alluded to (Canada is mentioned throughout) these comparisons are left mostly vague and general - Canada's system is not named or described. Canada (total?) apparently spends less on this than US care delivery specifically by 3/4, Canadian physicians spend about 1/10 the time dealing with bill payers, but the exact cost and benefit comparison of the study is skipped. And then, in the closing sentence, we get this quote from one of the study docs: "We aren't saying that we should go to a single payer system - - - - - - but it's important to know what all the benefits of the costs are".
That's the only allusion to the name and nature of Canada's system, to the name or nature of any alternative to the US setup, in the headline or body or commentary, in an entire report on a direct comparison study.
This is the NYT. It's the last paper in the US that should be doing that, and the last section of that paper in which it should be done. So what's our job?