I’m so sorry. You are such a phenomenal journalist and don’t deserve this.

"The HHS report diverged from scientific standards leading many professionals to question the accuracy and bias of it's findings. For example, the authors were not listed."

But when it comes up to forms of bias and quality that can be easily interpreted by readers because they are so non-technical I think we should always be straight up:

On the technical side, I think erring on the side of explaining quality of research (and what it means and it's limitations) is generally good (which is why I don't shy away from reporting on GAC's low evidence quality and how that is not that scandalous!) but impossible in a short story.

Explaining the quality of research is a weak spot for science/health journalism, IMO. For good reason, the technical terms regarding bias and quality have different meanings with different stakes than the colloquial terms commonly understood by readers.

As science journalists we can't just say two reports have different conclusions and leave it at that--we have to explain what goes into reports, potential for bias, etc.

I'm not trying to shade an otherwise good/imp article and journalist. Just an example of a larger trend I see a lot.

Same goes when comparing it to other research. The only difference pointed out between the Utah Report and the HHS report are the conclusions. But the quality of the Utah report matters too (multiple years, multiple named authors, 1,000 pages, etc.)

This is why I am going to an LIS grad program not J school. I think we sometimes get so caught up in the news cycle that we forget the long-term implications of our work. The stories that land on front-pages, that are saved to an archive, etc. shape how history will be told about this moment in time