3 ms·
I haven't read the article yet, but going from the headline, I certainly assumed they were claiming the same/similar risk for both red and processed meat. From
by GordonS 7y ago
I haven't read the article yet, but going from the headline, I certainly assumed they were claiming the same/similar risk for both red and processed meat.
From the summary you gave, it certainly does seem like a click-baity headline. Personally I would have hoped for better from the NHS (even if I wouldn't have expected it).
- simonh 7y agoI’m sorry, but that’s simply an unwarranted assumption.
- GordonS 7y agoEh? The figures given are clear (and yes, I've read the article by now) - the risk associated with processed meat is much greater than that with red meat.
- eeh 7y agoI believe the following assumption was the one simonh disagreed could be made: "I certainly assumed they were claiming the same/similar risk for both red and processed meat" I agree. Headlines should be suggestive of content, but cannot contain all the nuances.
- simonh 7y agoThe assumption I’m referring to is just the thing you said, in your post, that you assumed.
- GordonS 7y agoAh, sorry, I see what you mean now. It was the part where you said "unwarranted" that confused me, as the thing I said was warranted by the headline, the very thing I said was the basis for the assumption.
- eeh 7y agoThe NHS Choices blog's purpose is to critique the news's coverage of health research. It uses excerpts of other newspaper's articles to refer to those articles.