I’m taking the cowards way out and by-passing writing about the health reform “debate”. I don’t know enough, understand it enough, and have no chance to be heard at all in the twisted cacaphony any way. But I will jump in when it comes to the state of health risk reporting and the fact that the average reader doesn’t have a chance in hell to make sense of what’s being said.

The main culprit – is not complex language- as we know. It is the health and science concepts.

AND it is also the format or approach of the teller.

Take for instance the front page NYT story today “Debating Just How Much Weed Killer Is Safe in Your Water Glass”

I read the title as a bad joke – surely NO LEVEL IS SAFE THANK YOU.

But alas the story’s title was not written to be rhetorical.

The entire story is indeed an homage to the “dueling expert” approach to journalism.

State a problem and it’s common sense, person on the ground interpretation (atrazine in my drinking water is a bad thing), but then undermine any conviction I might have in the well-reasoned value of science, by presenting a list of debating experts and their debatable facts.

This is a long-lived journalistic writing strategy – you cover a story by presenting opposing viewpoints.

At best it’s “high-minded” and in some past demonstrated a commitment to an informed, thinking public, coming to their own decisions. (See Herbert J. Gans, Democracy and the News,

But what about at it’s worst? What if the story telling becomes the main goal. And controversy and uncertainty make a good story?

From a public health literacy perspective taking a topic that the public is already very interested in ( the safety of drinking water), and formulaically fashioning stories that are more about what the journalist wants to ( or is told to ) write about, is doing very little for allowing the public to acquire facts and think through risk and possible ways to reduce risk.

A more sociological or cultural approach to journalism about health and environmental issues would include some elements that would make it easier for readers to understand, interpret and act.

To the journalism professor and theorist this notion is abhorrent. “That’s what you can find in your blogs and other user – driven communication and media.”

Well – maybe that’s the point. Old, who/what/when approaches to journalism may very well be a primary reason for the proliferation of popular self publishing. Someone has to step up and present important information that may help us understand and participate in public discourse in ways that will lead us to healthier and safer lives.