DAYLIGHT SAVING TIME SHIFT INCREASES HEALTH RISKS

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/daylight-saving--time-shift-increases-health-risks-20101001-16092.html

Image taken from: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/daylight-saving--time-shift-increases-health-risks-20101001-16092.html

Daylight saving can pose a risk to workplace safety

Daylight saving this weekend will thrust millions of Australians into temporary sleep deprivation (as the clock will be pushed forward 1 hour), which experts warn can engender a 6 per cent increase in workplace accidents and a 5 per cent increase in heart attacks.

Dr. Murray from Melbourne’s Swinburne University of Technology said the loss of sleep could potentially cause a decrease in concentration, alertness and mental performance and could take several weeks for a person to adjust to their new day-night routine.

However, he also talks about the benefits of daylight saving, saying more daylight time, means more time to exercise, socialise and receive sunlight exposure which can be advantageous to mental health and well-being.

This was an interesting and informative article, showing different views - both the positive and negative aspects of daylight saving. I knew daylight saving in summer would mean losing an hour of sleep, but I didn’t know there were ramifications – that it could trigger an increase risk in heart attacks and workplace accidents, so this was a very insightful and informative piece.

The story has timeliness, as daylight saving is impending.

The story also has proximity - smh.com.au is an Australian news website and this article has the potential to affect all Australians, hence it is newsworthy.

I think the article has used well-chosen quotes by Associate Professor Dr. Murray who has conducted studies in the field, thus his quotes give the piece credibility. Dr. Murray also provides tips to facilitate the transition and adjustment to daylight saving, such as making a plan and going to bed earlier. Incorporating a section on tips of how to adjust to the new daylight saving time, is a strength of this article as it adds an extra layer of interest to the story and would be very useful for all the readers.

However, I would like to have seen some quotes from the everyday Australian worker, as the angle of the story in on how daylight saving can trigger an increase risk of workplace accidents. Perhaps a medical doctor, explaining the scientifics of how a lack of sleep can cause a heart attack could have been incorporated into the article too.

The visual accompanying the story of a man manually changing the time on a town clock, is very appealing and would capture the interest of readers to the story. I think the picture is appropriate and fits very well with the angle of the story on daylight saving and how it can affect workers as the picture depicts both that - a worker and a clock with the handles being pushed forward due to daylight saving.

The 5 W’s and 1 H were all present. Overall, this was a good story.

McDONALDS FURIOUS OVER 'I WAS LOVIN IT' AD

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/mcdonalds-furious-over-i-was-lovin-it-ad-20100915-15bkq.html

Image taken from: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/mcdonalds-furious-over-i-was-lovin-it-ad-20100915-15bkq.html

McDonalds is furious over commercial

McDonalds is furious over an anti-McDonald’s television commercial aimed at deterring people from consuming fast food. In the advertisement (See embedded video below), an overweight, middle-aged man is lying dead in a morgue clutching a half-eaten hamburger, while a woman (presumably his wife), is standing over his linen-clad body lamenting. The voiceover can be heard saying “high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart attacks”.

The commercial was produced by the “Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine” (PCRM) in Washington, who said the advertisement was driven by a goal to raise awareness of the high rates of death due to heart disease, and the large number of fast-food outlets in the city.

The story has conflict and currency, covering two of the key news values in journalism.
The SMH has incorporated quotes from the opposition to add conflict. Bridget Coffing, a spokesperson on behalf of McDonalds spoke out in defence of the fast-food chain, and admonishment of the commercial saying the ad is “outrageous, misleading and unfair to all consumers” (SMH). The story also has currency, because the health issue around obesity and childhood obesity is very topical, it is a current issue of great public concern and is prevalent around the world.

The article is informative, providing information stemming from PCRM on how studies have found that consumers of fast food have a higher risk of obesity and obesity-related illnesses such as heart disease.


The SMH have also integrated a link of the actual advertisement within their article to accompany the description of the ad - this is a strength of the SMH, because videos and visuals can assist in attracting and sustaining a reader’s interest as opposed to merely text.

An interesting point I thought I should raise is that this article has been copy and pasted verbatim on several mainstream news websites. Stories online commonly stem from news agency feeds or press releases that tend not to be fact-checked and are recycled over and over again, so this raises questions of accuracy.

A further point to raise is that the article would have been more interesting if the SMH included a quote from a parent - what do they think if their child was exposed to the ad? Do they think it's appropriate and will this ad deter them from allowing their child to eat foods high in fat, sugar and salt content such as McDonalds?

Overall, this was a good story.

FATHERS ALSO GET THE BABY BLUES

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/fathers-also-get-the-baby-blues-20100909-153as.html

Images taken from: http://psychcentral.com/news/u/2010/05/baby-father.jpg
http://topnews.ae/images/Postpartum-Depression.jpg


Post-natal depression in fathers is almost unheard of, but it is so prevalent, a new study has concluded that one in five men will experience it while their children are young.


A study of nearly 87,000 families in the UK, found that 21 per cent of fathers and 39 per cent of mothers experienced a period of depression before their child reached 12 years of age. Depression was most common amongst the parents whose child/children was still in infancy. Thirteen per cent of mothers and 3 per cent of fathers became depressed before their child turned one.

The first criticism I have to raise here is that the article should have provided further details from the study as to why it is more common for parents of infants to be depressed than parents of older children. If this was not possible to conclude from the research, perhaps the SMH could have provided quotes from an expert to obtain their views.

According to the chief executive of the Post and Antenatal Depression Association, Belinda Horton, people often don’t seek help because of the stigma attached to mental illness, and when it arises during a joyous and celebratory occasion such as the birth of a new baby, they are more disinclined. The added parental responsibilities and stress that a new infant brings can also exacerbate their reluctance to seek help for post-natal depression.

This is an interesting and informative piece, raising awareness of a health issue - affecting fathers, that is not widely known. The article addressed the 5 W’s and 1 H. One of the strengths of the story is that it provided a clear and concise definition of post-natal depression, which would be useful to any fathers (and mothers) out there who may be experiencing depressive symptoms but cannot identify where the source of their depression is stemming from. This article will allow them, not to self-diagnose, but to recognise and seek professional help.

Another strength is that a support hotline for post and antenatal depression is included at the end of the article as well as a link to a website on parenting and pregnancy. Both would be useful for any parent reading this article. The SMH have also included a section for comments, which not only allows readers to offer their views and opinions of the article and the health issue in general, but also for parents to interact, connect and offer support and advice to one another.

A further strength of the article is that it addressed the ‘WHY’ in the research, which I often find mainstream news websites neglect to include when they have an article looking at a study. Some of the reasons why fathers and mothers experience post-natal depression include having a genetic predisposition to depression, physical illness, sleep deprivation and hormonal changes. Life circumstances such as inadequate support and past trauma could also be factors triggering post-natal depression.

What the article has failed to include is quotes from a range of people who could have been incorporated into the story to add a variety of opinions and perspectives into the story. There were only quotes from two people - the executive from the Post and Antenatal Depression Association and Beyond Blue. They both gave an explanation for why parents tend not to seek help to treat post-natal depression. However, what would have been better is if the SMH provided quotes from actual participants and researchers involved in the study. Researchers could go into more depth of their findings derived from their research and the participants could share their experiences of post-natal depression.





Fathers suffer from post-natal depression too

The Guardian published a similar article on their website on fathers suffering from post-natal depression. Overall, their story is more successful than the SMH because they have included more detailed facts and figures from the study, they used a range of quotes, and incorporated anecdotes of three fathers into their article - who share their experiences of what it was like suffering from post-natal depression. By integrating anecdotes, the Guardian has personalised their story, which has added further interest and given their readers an insight into fathers suffering from post-natal depression first-hand.

AUSSIE PIES IN MAD COW DISEASE RISK

Source: http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-pies-in-mad-cow-disease-risk/story-e6frfkvr-1225833650184

Image taken from: http://www.news.com.au/national/aussie-pies-in-mad-cow-disease-risk/story-e6frfkvr-1225833650184





The beef in Aussie meat pies could soon be imported from countries that have had epidemics of mad cow disease, News.com.au reports. Australia will loosen its tough beef import rules, enabling countries such as Mexico, Canada, the US and UK to export their beef into Australia. The federal government said it was important to revoke the decade-long ban from those countries, however, opposition parties contend that the ban should remain to safeguard the health of the nation.



The humble meat pie could soon pose a health risk

The story has proximity and conflict – covering two the of the key news values in journalism. News.com.au is an Australian news website and this story directly affects all Australian consumers, thus the story has proximity.


News.com.au has added conflict in the story by incorporating quotes from Opposition Liberal Senator Bill Heffernan and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon, who both oppose of the changes to the ban.


The article also provided medical information on mad cow disease and the fatal ramifications of consuming mad cow disease-infected beef, which is useful for readers who are unfamiliar with this disease. The 5 W’s and 1 H are addressed early in the article.

However, one criticism is that the article should have elaborated on why the federal government has made the decision to lift the ban on beef imports. There is only one sentence saying that the government believes it is “important” to lift the ban. This was not supported by a quote from the Trade Minister, Health minister, Agriculture Minister or a relevant spokesperson, who could have provided further details behind the government’s decision.

Quotes from consumers of meat pies could have also been included to get a sense of what Australians think of this decision, after all, the angle of the story is on how the government’s decision to lift beef import restrictions will affect the nation. Do Australians agree or disagree? Will this deter them from eating beef pies? What is their opinion on eating foreign beef?

Quotes from the Australian Beef Association would have also been useful. Will the government’s decision adversely affect the beef industry? Eg: Competition on the market, pricing, issues pertaining to labelling and manufacturing that may arise etc. The latter was included in a similar article by the SMH which provided an insight for their readers into food labelling standards and the production of imported food in Australia.

Under Australian food labelling laws, a manufacturer could exploit the “Made in Australia” tag simply by importing meat and proving that it has been “substantially transformed” here, and that over half their production costs were accumulated here (cited in SMH). This could potentially affect consumers because they will be oblivious as to whether the meat they are eating is in fact from Australia or has stemmed from overseas - from a country where there have been outbreaks of mad cow disease. This is important and relevant information to readers, as they are also consumers who will be impacted by this.

The SMH supported this with a quote from Greens MP John Kaye, who said the labelling laws in Australia and the government’s decision to overturn the ban on beef imports, essentially means that consumers who want to avoid the risk of mad cow disease will be unable to do so. SMH have done a better job in their reporting of this story than News.com.au, as they have provided additional important and relevant information that will directly affect readers who are also consumers.

Overall,  this was a good article with a relevant and appropriate picture of a sliced open beef pie accompanying the story. The visual helps News.com.au to draw the interest of its online readers to the story.

A DIET OF BEANS AND HARD CHEESE IF YOU WANT A BABY GIRL

Source: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/sex-relationships/a-diet-of-beans-and-hard-cheese-if-you-want-a-baby-girl/story-e6frf01i-1225914505940

Images taken from: http://www.infoniac.com/health-fitness/eat-cheese-and-beans-to-have-a-baby-girl-study-says.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1309160/Want-girl-You-need-quit-salt-bananas-bed-often.html

Beans and hard cheese = baby girl?

According to scientists from Maastricht University in Holland, cutting out foods rich in salt and going on a strict diet of beans and hard cheese, can increase a mother's chances of giving birth to a baby girl.

Mothers should avoid foods high in sodium and potassium such as olives, bacon, smoked salmon, potatoes, meats, blue cheese, bread and pastries. Foods high in calcium and magnesium are recommended including yogurt, hard cheese, rhubarb, tofu, spinach, oranges, broccoli, figs, beans and different kinds of wheat cereals.

The study involved 172 Caucasian women from Western Europe, aged between 23-42. Results found 80 per cent of the women who maintained the recommended diet, all ended up giving birth to baby girls. Timing of conception was also crucial a factor in determining the sex of the baby.

However, the article failed to mention how many women adhered to the diet right to the end of the study, and how many of those women actually gave birth to a girl. The Daily Mail did a better job at reporting this fact. They stated that 21 of the 172 women stuck it out to the end, and of the 21, 16 gave birth to a daughter. Because The Daily Telegraph has omitted this fact, many of their readers would erronously assume that 80 per cent of the 172 women (roughly 138 women) actually gave birth to a girl, when in fact 16 did.  

Overall, this was an interesting, engaging and informative article. The heading is direct and attention-grabbing, and the length of the article is fairly short, making it an ideal piece for online readers. The Daily Telegraph has also integrated a “Have your say” comments box, enabling readers to share their thoughts on the article, and allowing mothers to share their experiences and to interact with one another. Do they agree or disagree with this study? Do they have any specific tips and diets that worked for them in producing the desired sex of their baby? 

Diet and timing can determine the sex of a baby

However, what’s lacking is some visuals to go with the article, which would have made the piece more interesting and appealing overall for the reader. There is only one quote from a spokesperson on behalf of the scientists who conducted this study and there is no name or title of the spokesperson. As a reader, I would have liked to see a few direct quotes from the researchers themselves and the participants involved in the study. Quotes from the mothers who partook in this study (or mother’s independent of the study) - sharing their success stories would have been useful.

Another weakness of this article is that it failed to provide information on the ‘why’ behind the study. What is the scientific reason for why avoiding foods high in sodium and potassium and opting for foods rich in calcium and magnesium, can increase a mother’s chance of producing a baby girl? Thus, the article has not covered all of the 5 W’s and 1 H.

The article mentioned the duration of the study (5 years), but there is no mention of how long mothers should be on this diet before they try to conceive. This would be helpful to all the mothers out there who may be reading this article and wanting to know when they should commence and how long they should adhere to this diet prior to conceiving.

Finally, a brief definition and description of scientific terms such as sodium, magnesium and potassium could have also been included, so readers who may be unfamiliar with these terms, can have a better understanding of the article.

MILK OUTPERFORMS SPORTS DRINKS

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/milk-outperforms-sports-drinks-20100908-150xr.html

Image taken from:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/milk-outperforms-sports-drinks-20100908-150xr.html

Milk better than sports drinks?

Researchers are giving scientific backing that milk may be equally as good or even better than sports drinks for athletes recovering from exercise.

This was an interesting and informative piece. I liked how they opened the story with a scene of gym trainer Matt Whitmore drinking a carton of milk after a heavy training session. Rather than opening the story with facts (the 5 W’s and 1 H), the SMH used a colour introduction to capture the reader’s interest and to personalise the story.

The story provided useful information and facts for the reader on the health benefits of milk such as vitamin D, calcium, electrolytes and carbohydrates.

According to researchers, milk contains casein and whey - two essential proteins that are optimal for rebuilding muscles after exercise such as running, football and cycling. This was supported by quotes from Glenys Jones- a nutritionist at Britain’s Medical Research Council, who gives the story credibility. She asserts that milk is an ideal drink for regenerating new muscles damaged during exercise, while sports drinks merely replace lost carbohydrates and electrolytes.

However, I think the story could be improved by providing a definition of these scientific terms to aid readers who may be unfamiliar with these terms. In addition, the SMH could have provided a brief description of the benefits of these specific nutrients and proteins that are found in milk content.

A strength of this article is that it manages to hold the reader’s interest to the end by providing a variety of quotes from different sources and integrating different perspectives and research pertaining to the benefits of milk. The article incorporated another study into the piece to reinforce and substantiate the advantages of milk for athletes. A study published by Applied Physiology, Nutrition and Metabolism, found that people who drank milk were able to train longer during their next session, than people who opted for water or a sports drink.

The story provides further interesting factual information by providing details of another study conducted in Canada, which found women who drank milk after lifting weights, lost more fat and built more muscle than those who had a sports drink. This further corroborates the benefits of milk for athletes.

The story also has prominence - referring to how gold medallist swimmer Michael Phelps regularly drank flavoured milk between his races during the Beijing Olympics.

Another strength of this article is that it provided different and opposing views, which generated conflict in the story and covered one of the key news values in journalism. Nutritionist Glenys Jones believes milk is an ideal drink for post-exercise, however, dietician Catherine Collins contends that whilst milk can provide benefits for professional athletes who expend thousands of calories each day through intensive training, it would be more ideal for sporadic gym-goers to drink plain water or a sports drink, because milk - particularly flavoured chocolate milk can add calories and is more difficult to digest.

Overall, this was a good story.

CHILDREN OF LESBIAN PARENTS DO BETTER THAN THEIR PEERS

Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html

Image taken from:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/two-mums-better-than-dad-20100614-y7h6.html

Children born to and raised by lesbian parents have better outcomes

According to a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics, children born to and raised by lesbian couples have better social and academic outcomes than their heterosexual, nuclear family-raised peers.

A survey conducted by the National Longitudinal Lesbian Survey followed 78 babies from conception to adolescence and were interviewed and tested at age 17. The sons and daughters of lesbian mothers scored significantly higher in terms of social and academic tests and exhibited fewer social problems such as rule-breaking, aggressive and externalising behaviour, than their nuclear family-raised peers.  

This study challenges and disproves the entrenched, stereotypical notion that children born to same-sex couples grow up with adverse, psychological disorders, and will hopefully open doors for same-sex adoption.

This was an interesting and informative piece. It provided detailed information not only stemming from the study, but in relation to the current statistics and history of same-sex adoption.

However, as a reader, I would have liked to learn more about the ‘why’ behind this study. Why is it, that children born and raised by lesbian mothers, fare better than their same-aged counterparts who were raised by heterosexual parents? What are the factors driving these outcomes?

I think the Sydney Morning Herald have done a better job than the New Scientist. They at least touched on the ‘why’ behind this study, stating that the key difference is the mothers’ active engagement. In addition, these children encountered teasing and bullying due to their unconventional family structure, and the stress that this caused at age 10 served as a foundation that aided them in the way they dealt with challenging and critical issues as they grew up - this could have also contributed to their outcomes. I thought this was an interesting fact that the New Scientist failed to include.

I would have also liked to have seen quotes from a participant in this study, perhaps the children themselves or their lesbian mothers. What was the experience like for these children growing up? What do they think are the reasons for outscoring their peers? What did their lesbian mothers do differently to the heterosexual parents of their peers? This could have personalised the angle of the story.

What about children born to and raised by gay fathers? There is no mention of them in this article. Despite the fact that the study focused solely on children raised by lesbian mothers, and the angle of the story is based on findings derived from this study, it would have been interesting to see if the same outcomes applied to children raised by gay fathers, and if not, then why? Perhaps the New Scientist could have incorporated the result of a similar study that focused on children raised by gay fathers into their story - to provide contrast (if the results differed) or to reinforce the results produced from the current study. If this was not possible, then the New Scientist could have used quotes from an expert, to see their perspective on whether they think there would be any difference in terms of outcomes between children raised by lesbian mothers and gay fathers.

If there are cynical researchers out there, the New Scientist could have also used quotes to show their opposing views and produce conflict in the story, which would have added further interest and covered one of the key news values in journalism. Overall this was a well-written article that was packed with interesting facts and information for the reader. However, it would have been even better if a variety of quotes were used e.g: from participants of the study and their lesbian parents, rather than just quotes limited to a researcher and a sociologist.