Critically Reading News Related to Health Care When reading stories about new methods for curing a disease or a new medication, one has to carefully and critically read to find out whether what is stated is really true. The questions below will help you to do so – these are the questions you should ask yourself before you believe the “hype” about the new wonder drug. Each question has a little graphic that is a warning, together with the issue that may arise. This is followed by more details to help you assess whether there is an issue. 1. Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention? Health care isn’t free. News stories don’t help patients and consumers if they don’t tackle costs. When rating a story on this criterion, check whether the story discusses the costs of the intervention, whether it’s a new device, medication, surgery, exercise fad, therapy or any of the myriad treatments being studied. It’s not good enough to say, “The cost is much lower than the invasive procedures.” What is that cost? How much lower? Also, do insurance policies typically cover the intervention? Might there be other expenses (psychologists, dietitians, required follow-up visits or tests, etc.) that increase the burden on patients? If they cannot be quantified, they should at least be mentioned. For early trials or preliminary research, it may be difficult to estimate costs of an experimental approach early in its development. But a news story can at least cite costs of existing alternatives. If the new approach is comparable to other approaches then the cost of the alternative methods could be cited. Bottom line: If it’s not too early to talk about benefits of a new intervention, it’s not too early to talk about costs. We also know that some interventions may cost more in the short term, and yet are cost-effective in the long term because they reduce the need for expensive care down the road. While these longer- term costs may be difficult or impossible to pin down, good stories make a reasonable attempt to discuss the implications. 2. Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/procedure? New healthcare treatments should work well. When reading a story, people want to know: How effective is the intervention? Do the numbers back it up? News stories should explain what the researchers measured, in numerical terms. And to use absolute numbers whenever possible. Many news stories tell us how wonderful a new treatment, test, product or procedure may be. Few provide helpful numbers to back that up. Ideally, the story should also explain whether the findings make an actual difference in people’s lives. If a study says a new drug improved function by 30% in MS patients, what does that mean? How was that measured? What would an MS patient want to know? Also, research often isn’t about an actual improvement in health or quality of life, it’s instead centered around su ...

1. Critically Reading News Related to Health Care
When reading stories about new methods for curing a disease or
a new medication, one has to carefully
and critically read to find out whether what is stated is really
true. The questions below will help you to
do so – these are the questions you should ask yourself before
you believe the “hype” about the new
wonder drug.
Each question has a little graphic that is a warning, together
with the issue that may arise. This is
followed by more details to help you assess whether there is an
issue.
1. Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the
intervention?
Health care isn’t free. News stories don’t help
patients and consumers if they don’t tackle costs.
When rating a story on this criterion, check whether the story
discusses the costs of the intervention,
whether it’s a new device, medication, surgery, exercise fad,
therapy or any of the myriad treatments
being studied. It’s not good enough to say, “The cost is much
lower than the invasive procedures.”
What is that cost? How much lower? Also, do insurance policies
typically cover the intervention?
Might there be other expenses (psychologists, dietitians,

2. required follow-up visits or tests, etc.) that
increase the burden on patients? If they cannot be quantified,
they should at least be mentioned.
For early trials or preliminary research, it may be difficult to
estimate costs of an experimental
approach early in its development. But a news story can at least
cite costs of existing alternatives. If
the new approach is comparable to other approaches then the
cost of the alternative methods could
be cited. Bottom line: If it’s not too early to talk about benefits
of a new intervention, it’s not too
early to talk about costs.
We also know that some interventions may cost more in the
short term, and yet are cost-effective in
the long term because they reduce the need for expensive care
down the road. While these longer-
term costs may be difficult or impossible to pin down, good
stories make a reasonable attempt to
discuss the implications.
2. Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the
treatment/test/procedure?
New healthcare treatments should work well.
When reading a story, people want to know: How
effective is the intervention? Do the numbers back
it up?
News stories should explain what the researchers measured, in
numerical terms. And to use absolute
numbers whenever possible. Many news stories tell us how
wonderful a new treatment, test, product

3. or procedure may be. Few provide helpful numbers to back that
up.
Ideally, the story should also explain whether the findings make
an actual difference in people’s
lives. If a study says a new drug improved function by 30% in
MS patients, what does that mean?
How was that measured? What would an MS patient want to
know?
Also, research often isn’t about an actual improvement in health
or quality of life, it’s instead
centered around surrogate outcomes, such as changes in blood
test scores, or tumor shrinkage. These
endpoints can be useful for researchers (and biotech investors),
but surrogate outcomes
do not automatically equal living better or longer. Readers need
to know that.
If a story is about preclinical research like a mouse or monkey
study, it must point out that
researchers have no guarantee that the intervention will provide
the same benefit to people.
And, stories that rely too heavily on patient anecdotes may be
unrepresentative of the true benefit.
The same goes for unchallenged exaggerated quotes (“this is a
real game-
changer/breakthrough/cure” etc.), which can throw a story out
of balance and overshadow the
statistics. When a story is top heavy with personal stories, it
makes it hard for readers to sustain their
critical thinking when (if) they get to information that is
quantitative. If you hear glowing patient

4. anecdotes about how well something worked, always ask
yourself if that was a representative
example.
3. Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the
intervention?
All healthcare interventions carry potential harms.
When reading a news story about a new treatment,
readers should find out what is known about the
harms.
When a story is about a treatment (new drug, surgery, therapy
lifestyle change, etc) or screening test,
is should include a discussion of harms and side effects, as well
as any measured “adverse events” in
a study.
There are tradeoffs involved in any health care decision. No
matter what you choose to do, you stand
to gain something and you stand to lose something. All
treatments have potential harms, side effects,
and complications. Also, there is no such thing as a simple
blood or screening test. They carry the
risk of a false-positive or false-negative result, which can result
in missed diagnosis or
overtreatment, and anxiety.
Ideally, stories discuss both frequency of side effects and
severity of side effects, and discuss both
major and minor side effects. What might be minor to one
person could be major to another.
Preliminary animal studies or otherwise early research: It’s also
important to remember that we

5. often have no idea what the true impact of a drug is until it’s
been used in a large number of people
(and not mice and not cells in a lab), so the story should point
out that some harms may be
unknown–especially when the research is far from ready for
prime time.
Many stories emphasize or exaggerate potential benefits while
minimizing or completely ignoring
potential harms. They may:
• Fail to mention or quantify potential harms.
• Fail to describe the severity of potential harms.
• Fail to account for “minor” side effects that could have a
significant impact on a patient’s life.
• Rely too heavily on a patient anecdote about safety or on a
researcher’s comment that an
approach “appears to be safe” – without supporting data.
4. Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?
Ideally, healthcare interventions are subjected to
rigorous testing to prove they work. When reading
about a new intervention, device or diagnostic tool,
people should come away with a sense of how rigorous
the evidence is for the intervention.
The story should include enough details about the study and
how it fits into the hierarchy of
evidence. As in: Was it an animal study? An observational
study? A small, safety trial? A large,

6. randomized controlled trial? A meta-analysis or systematic
review? A recommendation from a task
force that reviews evidence? And regardless the type of
evidence, what was the quality of the
evidence?
Not all studies are equal. Not all evidence is bullet-proof. There
is not a certainty or a finality to
everything that appears in the New England Journal of Medicine
or any other journal. And just
because it’s a study – or just because it’s published somewhere
– the story is not over. That’s not the
way science works.Yet many stories:
• Present anecdotes as evidence of a treatment’s benefits –
rather than as a single illustration of its
use.
• Leave out study limitations – even though all studies carry
limitations.
• Fail to caution readers about interpretation of uncontrolled
data.
• Fail to explain if a primary outcome is a surrogate marker1 or
fail to caution readers/viewers
about extrapolating this to health outcomes.
• Fail to point out the limited peer review that may have taken
place with findings presented at a
scientific meeting.
• Conflate causation and association – failing to explain
limitations of observational studies.
• Get caught up in reporting on the latest study without
reporting on larger, better-designed studies
that have been done already.

7. 1 An indirect indicator of a disease state or of its response to
therapy. Such markers often include laboratory tests thought to
represent clinical progress accurately. For example, in diabetes
mellitus, the glycosylated hemoglobin level is used as a
marker of glycemic control; in AIDS the level of HIV RNA is
used as a marker of disease progression.
Questions to ask:
• What are the limitations of the evidence?
• Was the study done in only a few people?
• Was the study done for only a short time? What might happen
long-term? Will there be follow-
up?
• Did the study report on an outcome that you really care about
– like illness or death? Or did it
only report on test results, markers, or scores?
• Did this information come from a talk presented at a scientific
meeting? If so, you should know
this kind of research is often considered preliminary because
other experts haven’t had a chance
to thoroughly review it.
• Were the findings from an animal or lab experiment that might
not be applicable to human
health?
• Did the information simply present anecdotes as evidence of a

8. treatment’s harms or benefits –
rather than real numbers from the entire study group?
5. Does the story commit disease-mongering?
Sometimes new conditions or diseases actually may
just be opportunities to medicalize (and monetize)
normal states of health. Readers aren’t well-served
by stories that exaggerate or oversell conditions.
There are different forms of “mongering,” including:
• turning risk factors into diseases, with the implication that,
then, these must be treated (e.g., low
bone mineral density becomes osteoporosis);
• misrepresentation of the natural history and/or severity of a
disease (e.g., early-stage low-grade
prostate cancer);
• medicalization of minor or transient variations in function
(e.g. temporary erectile dysfunction);
• medicalization of normal states (aging, baldness, wrinkles,
shyness, menopause);
• exaggeration of how common a disorder is (e.g., using rating
scales to ‘diagnose’ chronic dry
eye; see “not satisfactory” story examples below).
Identifying disease mongering is a matter of judgment.
Sometimes it is obvious. Sometimes there’s a
fine line about whether an article on irritable bowel disorder,
erectile dysfunction, restless leg
syndrome or osteoporosis (all of which can be serious for some

9. sufferers) is misrepresenting the
condition to the public.
Note: Most of the conditions we list are not life-threatening.
The grand-daddy of disease-mongering
is fixating on LDL cholesterol numbers instead of evaluating
whether studies showed a change in
how well or how long people live–and whether treatment results
in fewer cases of heart disease or
fewer deaths.
Beware of statistics that may inflate the seriousness of a
condition. Beware of articles that
exaggerate the human consequences of a condition – “millions
of us are suffering in silence with
toenail fungus.” Suffering? Beware of interviews with “worst-
case” patients – holding such patients
up as examples as if their experiences were representative of all
with this condition.
The story should discuss the prevalence of the condition under
discussion–and if that prevalence
could possibly be inflated.
6. Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts
of interest?
Health care is rife with conflicts of interest. Readers
deserve to know if the sources in the story have any
conflicts of interest. They also deserve to hear the opinion
of objective, independent third-party experts, who are vital
to backstopping exaggerated claims.

10. Conflicts of interest are common among people making claims
about new treatments, tests, products
or procedures. Examples include:
• A trial paid for by the drug manufacturer.
• Researchers employed by or getting fees from a drug
company.
• A spokesman for a device manufacturer.
• Doctors who are early adopters and true believers in a new
device.
• An inventor or researcher who is seeking patents.
All of these people want their product or their idea to look as
good as it can.
News stories should identify the source of the story (news
release, journal article, editorial, scientific
meeting presentation, etc.) and explain how likely that source is
to be conflicted (e.g., a PR
consultant working for the company said; or Dr. Smith, who
received a company grant to perform
the study, said…)
They also must include the input of a trusted independent
source with expertise on the subject to
comment on the claims made. (Ideally, more than one such
independent source would be used). But
often stories only have one source, and it’s someone with “a
dog in the hunt.”
7. Does the story compare the new approach with existing
alternatives?
Just because something is “new” in health care

11. doesn’t mean it’s better. When reading about a
new drug, test, surgery, etc., readers should come
away informed that there are other options on the
table.
Journalists want to cover what’s new. But without a discussion
of alternatives, readers can come
away with the impression that the new option is the only good
option. Therefore, the new
intervention or finding must be put in context with existing
alternatives that have a longer, more
proven track record.
Alternatives to an intervention can mean lifestyle changes,
another drug, surgery, no treatment, or
“active surveillance” – declining immediate aggressive therapy
while remaining under close medical
care. A good article contains a brief discussion of the other
treatments on the table, and how they
compare in effectiveness and cost.
Stories may get rated ‘Not Satisfactory’ if they:
• Discuss a surgical approach without mentioning non-surgical
alternative approaches.
• Discuss a new test without mentioning other tests that are
available; including the option of not
being screened in the case of a screening test.
• Fail to discuss the advantages/disadvantages of the new idea
compared with existing approaches.
• Fail to discuss how the new treatment, test, product or
procedure fits into the realm of existing

12. alternatives.
8. Does the story establish the availability of the
treatment/test/product/procedure?
New medical treatments often get lots of attention before
they’re ever made available to the public. After reading a
story about a new intervention, a person should be able
to answer: Is it actually available to me?
Sometimes news stories report on things as if they were
available at the corner drug store (or
doctor’s office), when, in fact, they may be years away from
even coming on the market. There may
be a lot of marketing hype that suggests that something is well-
studied and ready for use–this hype is
good for stock prices, but not patients.
Whenever you hear a prediction about something “expected to
be approved by the FDA” in a certain
time period, take it with a grain of salt. It doesn’t get approved
until it gets approved, and there may
be many steps left in the approval process. Ignore crystal ball
predictions; they usually come from
someone who stands to benefit. It’s also important to know that
“approved” medical devices in the
U.S. may not be safe or effective.
Another issue to be aware of is that something might be
approved in Europe, but not in the U.S. That
should raise questions about why it hasn’t been submitted for
approval in the U.S. yet, or why it
hasn’t gained approval yet. If it’s already approved in the U.S.,

13. or doesn’t need to be approved (such
as a new surgical method or a new type of exercise equipment),
it’s usually not enough to just say
the intervention is “available.” For example, if it’s a type of
heart surgery, do patients have to travel
to specific hospitals that offer that surgery? If it’s a new fitness
fad, is it only available in trendy
gyms in Manhattan? If it’s a new drug, will it immediately be
stocked on pharmacy shelves?
9. Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?
Often something that’s lauded as new or novel really
isn’t. Or it may be new, but it’s not better. So, when
reading about a “new” medical intervention, people
deserve to know: What is truly new and different
about this idea?
Drug companies (and device-makers) are very good at
promoting their new drugs or products as
“novel” to increase initial sales. Yet many “new” treatments,
tests, products or procedures are not
really novel. A “new” drug may be another member of a well-
established therapeutic class of drugs.
And even if a drug is the first in a new class of drugs it may
offer no more benefit than the drugs that
are widely available.
By focusing on one new idea, it may appear that it’s the only
thing being researched in the field.
Putting this in context of past research helps keep hype in
check. That backstory can be hard to find

14. unless the reporter finds a truly independent expert.
We repeat: Newer isn’t always better in health care. And it may
not really even be newer. Stories
should establish just how novel the new thing is.
Resources for establishing novelty:
• Clinicaltrials.gov can provide information about other studies
that are underway about a specific
treatment or for a particular condition. It can be useful for
providing context about something
seemingly innovative.
• With PubMed, you can put in a key word or two and pretty
quickly establish whether something
is absolutely unique and if not – how long it’s been around and
studied.
10. Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news
release?
Sometimes news stories rely solely or largely on a
PR news release–and never disclose that the
information came from a news release. Readers
deserve to know if a story includes no original
reporting.
With many news organizations facing tough economic times,
financial pressures may lead some
newsrooms to become more open to using news releases as a
way to publish content while cutting
costs. News releases can be valid sources of some information.
But journalism is charged with the

15. task of independently vetting claims. Therefore, it is
unacceptable to rely on a news release as the
sole source of information–and to not disclose that.
The Great Shutdown : How COVID-19 changed
the world economy
Having good [email protected] financial [email protected]
with foreign countries and the IMF is crucial
for any
country. The IMF has always helped countries facing
financial problems, especially during world
financial crisis such as the 2008 housing crisis,
Greek bankruptcy and the most recent market
crash because of the COVID-19 pandemic that
the world was faced with.
With this research paper, I am to study and
report on the various challenges that many
countries faced such as a health crisis,
financial crisis and a collapse in commodity
prices. The
IMF and policymakers were faced with the challenge of
providing the world with unprecedented

16. support to not only households and small
business but even large [email protected] and
financial
markets in order to shape and mold the markets
to be prepared when the world opened up
aOer the global lockdown. The global lockdown
restricted travel, businesses world
wideworldwide, the healthcare system was overworked
and overloaded with
[email protected][email protected]
and a disease the world had never seen before.
Many believed that the great lockdown caused
an economic recession worse than the Great
Depression and much more worse than the
global
financial crisis.
In March when the COVID19 disease was
declared as a global pandemic, the projected
global
growth fell downfell to – 3%. [email protected]
showed the combined loss to global GDP would
be
somewhere around the 9 trillion dollar mark.
Countries that were heavily dependent on tourism
and travel expected massive [email protected]

17. Developing economies and emerging markets
were
[email protected][email protected] growth rates for -1%
for the year 2020. Countries like India and China
were
faced with more problems due to the high
[email protected] in their countries.
As the world went into lockdown, policymakers started
to take [email protected] on large, @mely
and
targeted fiscal, financial and monetary policies. These
policies included credit guarantees,
liquidity [email protected], laon forbearance ,forbearance,
expanded unemployment insurance, tax
reliefs and [email protected] payments. These policies
enabled small business and households to
[email protected] to pass the lockdown. These
measures ensured that there were less job losses
due to
the pandemic.
The above listed measures and policies are a
small part of the reopening phase of the
lockdown,
however it played a vital role in ensuring

18. economic stability post lockdown. In my research
paper I want to focus on what these policies
were, how each one impacted what industry,
country and lastly how it helped the world
recover from the financial crisis.
The COVID-19 pandemic was different from all the
other past economic downturns and trigger.
The pandemic triggered [email protected], shortage of
labor, [email protected], lockdowns and social
distancing across the world. All business and
movement was halted apart from [email protected]
[email protected]@es. These measures were put in
place in order to minimize the spread of
the virus
amongst the public. With workplaces being closed,
supply chain and [email protected] was
disrupted.
Layoffs, incomes declines and heightened uncertainty
made people more [email protected] than
ever. On the other hand, medical expenses were at an
all @[email protected] high with healthcare
equipment manufacturers running factories over @me.
Rising unemployment triggered
widespread default on credit card payments and
loans. Lenders were faced with the difficult

19. decision to hold back credit for firms and
individuals.
Policymakers and governments were kicked into
overdrive in order to draw up a plan that
would
provide a roadmap for countries, industries and small
businesses to ride the pandemic and
sustain through it to be able to resume
businesses once the pandemic had passed. To
come up
with strategies, policymakers looked at previous
economic downturns to get [email protected] on
how
to overcome this downfall. In response to the
pandemic, advanced economies [email protected]
[email protected] fiscal and monetary policy support
measures. These measures were believed to be
far greater as compared to the ones taken in
response to the global financial crisis in
2008.
While these measures were being planned and put
into [email protected], there was [email protected] a
great amount of
uncertainty revolving around the pandemic, which

20. added [email protected] pressure on
policymakers
to be prepared to implement even larger
measures in the months to come. (Gopinath,
n.d.)
(Gopinath, n.d.)
As [email protected] above, there was a high level of
uncertainty revolving around the pandemic,
there were significant upside as well as downside
risks to the outlook of the pandemic. The
upside being vaccine trialsshowing progress,
treatments ge_ng be`er and more policy support
that would lead to quicker [email protected] of
economic [email protected]@es. However, there were
newer
variants of the virus showing up around the world
that would trigger more waves of
[email protected]
and @ghten financial [email protected] with people
spending more on healthcare.
With a crisis like no other, it was expected
that there will be a recovery like no other. As
countries would reopen, it was expected that the
pick uppickup in [email protected]@es would be
staggered

21. and uneven. Demand for retail products would be
high with demand with backed up orders
whereas travel and hospitality business would
remain at all @[email protected] lows.
Countries that
were heavily dependent on tourism would face serious
financial problems and would lead to
increasing poverty. [email protected] policy support
proved to be crucial in advanced economies
and
to a lesser extent for emerging and developing
economies that were more constrained by fiscal
space. During the course of the pandemic the
global fiscal support reached $10 trillion
and
monetary policy had eased [email protected] with
interest rate cuts, liquidity [email protected] and
asset
purchases. These measures ensured that small
livelihoods and small businesses sustained
and
at the same @me larger [email protected] avoided
bankruptcies, this helped reduce long
[email protected]

22. damages to the economy.
In countries that were being severely contained by
the pandemic and went into lockdown such
as India, people that were directly impacted should
receive income support through
unemployment insurance, wage subsidies and cash transfers.
Firms that are impacted by the
pandemic should be supported with tax deferrals, loans
and grants. Right before the pandemic
hit, countries like India had given tremendous
importance to [email protected]@on and digital
banking.
This proved to be crucial to reach the
unemployed.
Policy support was expected to shiO formfrom being
targeted to being more broad based,
wherein the fiscal space would permit
countries to taken green public investments
and
accelerate the recovery process while [email protected]
climate goals. During the pandemic,
[email protected]
levels were at all @[email protected] lows with
factories and transport being halted. Along
with the
long termlong-term challenges that policymakers faced,

23. a medium term challenge that needed
to be addressed was public debt.
(Gopinath, n.d.)
Public debt was projected to reach all
@[email protected] highs in [email protected] to
GDP in advanced as well
as emerging and developing economies. Countries
would need strong fiscal frameworks for
medium term [email protected], cut down on
wasteful spending, widening tax bases and
minimizing
tax avoidance.
In response to the 2008 crisis, policy rates were
reduced by an average of 3 percent by
the
central banks in advanced economies.
Governments on a average deployed
expansionary fiscal
[email protected] with primary balances to the GDP
declining by an average of 4 percentage.
Alongside
these [email protected], the central banks deployed
[email protected] monetary policy tools, large

24. scale financial asset purchases and [email protected] interest
rates. It is believed that these policies
helped the economy avoid an even deeper slump.
The IMF projected a deeper recession in 2020 and an
even slower recovery in 2021. It was
expected that the global output will experience a
decline of 4.9% in 2020 and would be below
by 1.9 percentage points as compared to the
[email protected] made by the IMF for April.
One of the key moves taken by policy makers
was to deliver [email protected] to liO
aggregate demand in
the market. Fiscal [email protected] such as a
[email protected] point to powerful effects of
fiscal [email protected] when
normal interest rates are at an [email protected]
lower bound or monetary policy is
[email protected] The
size of fiscal [email protected] varies on how it
is delivered. A meta-analysis of the vast
literature on
fiscal [email protected] points to average
[email protected] for public spending on goods
and services.

25. [email protected] are expected to be higher when
leakages from the economy are low and contained
or when the monetary policy is [email protected]
Bibliography
(Gopinath, n.d.)
CBS News: Same-day hip replacements
summary
This article summarizes information about hip replacement
surgery where patients go home on the same day.
Mentions more than 300,000 hip replacement procedures done
annually.
NYU Langone Medical Center claims to be the first academic
medical center in New York City to implement a same-day hip
replacement program in 2015.
The article gives a brief description of some of the options for
hip replacement surgery as well as some of the risks of the
surgery.
Mentions research done by the American Academy of
Orthopaedic surgeons showing “no significant differences”
between surgical approaches relative to recovery outcomes six-
months after surgery.
Be sure to include any statistics or data given in the report.
2
Criticisms

26. No discussion of costs of the treatment.
No discussion of benefits of the treatment.
Minimal discussion of evidence.
Only one study cited, red flag. Are there other studies?
Does not compare with existing alternatives.
Only refers to a single procedure and the length of stay in the
hospital.
No discussion of costs, information which is easily available.
Although going home the “same day” seems to be important in
the article, the overall benefits of the procedure itself are not
discussed.
Only mentions one study, does not refer to other studies that
may show alternative outcomes.
Report fails to say other treatments available for hip issues,
only discusses the length of stay option.
3
ITEMS DONE WELL
Story does NOT rely solely or largely on a news release.
Includes original interviews and other reporting
Story does NOT commit disease-mongering
Hip problems are not exaggerated
The story DOES adequately explain/quantify harms of the
intervention.
Mention of complications in first night after surgery
The article includes original interviews and other reporting.
The story does not exaggerate the extent of hip problems.

27. The story includes warnings from a surgeon about complications
in the first night of surgery.
4
GOING BEyoND THE REPORT (OPTIONAL)
Does not use independent sources.
One outside doctor noted, no other outside sources.
Outside research discovered marketing campaign (no
information in the article)
Additional studies?
Thorough literature review recommended when possible. Story
does not provide links to sources.
To truly critique a news reports, independent investigation
through online searches, overall review of original source
material (subject websites, press releases) is advised, although
not required for this project.
5