Do you remember as a kid looking at the picture of a toy on the box and then opening it and finding it didn't quite match the sell job created by the artist's conception? I distinctly remember being a youngster and finding the difference between a remote controlled car and a radio controlled car meant one has a cord attached to the controller and the other didn't. I wasn't quite sold a bill of goods but the sales job didn't quite match reality. These days I find that headlines often over sell the product and under deliver on content.
Today's US News and World Report asks; Fish Oil Supplements, EPA, DHA, and ALA: Does Your Omega-3 Source Matter? A few weeks ago the New York Times had a headline that read: The Claim: Fish Oil Supplements Can Contain Mercury. In both of these cases a quick declarative sentence can either answer the question or dispel the myth-hardly the pay off a reader might be looking for with such inquiring headlines. Does the source matter? Yes. Do supplements contain mercury? No.
Responsible members of the media know that The Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics clearly states reporters should "Make certain that headlines... do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context."
In the US News and World Report article the reporter wonders how consumers are to choose between fish-based omega-03's and vegetarian-based omega-3's. However, the reporting points out that the science is already clear that the EPA & DHA (long-chain) omega-3's found in fish benefit your heart-"it is an unresolved question whether ALA (short chain) provides the same benefit in preventing heart disease." The science is also clear that "the body needs to convert the short-chain version to a long-chain version in order to make use of it but this conversion doesn't happen very rapidly." While the only scientific argument made that the vegetarian-based short chain omega-3's are a better choice comes when a doctor argues, "I think plant sources are highly underrated..."- okay, thank you for your insight.
The quandary wrapped up in Does Your Omega-3 Source Matter? is a manufactured one. Yes, the source matters and that conclusion was reached well before this or any article was penned.
Far be it from me to copy edit headlines but perhaps, Sorting out the Differences Between Omega-3 Claims would be closer to accurate.
And then there's the Old Gray Lady and her alarmist headline The Claim: Fish Oil Supplements Can Contain Mercury, when the article's conclusion is simply "fish oil products contain little or no contaminants."
How about Fish Oil Supplements Don't Contain Mercury-that one took a while to come up with, I had to weed through all the facts first.
It may sound like I am splitting hairs or being hyper critical but let me put it in perspective for you. Headlines that ask questions they know are false or present conflicts where they know there are none are like journalistic gateway drugs to hyperbole and worse. It's omega-3's and mercury today but tomorrow its:
