More journalism news: A cup of Google tea with your Brazilian Second Life avatar?

I first learned via Wired Campus that Alex Wissner-Gross, a physicist at Harvard, supposedly claimed that conducting two Google searches produces the same amount of carbon dioxide as bringing a kettle of water to a full boil. Since this was published in the United Kingdom's The Sunday Times (not to be confused with high quality journalism if you're unfamiliar with the UK), I guess they went with the tea aspect to appeal to their audience despite the fact that Harvard's up the road from the Boston Tea Party. Has anyone done an environmental impact study on that one?

I digress. I'll do that a lot with this particular entry, but it's to make a point about the authenticity of journalism when it comes to scientific research. Google replied via their blog that this wasn't the case, a single Google search only generates .2 grams of carbon dioxide.

According to Technology News, Mr. Wissner-Gross spent the majority of Monday trying to state the facts about his research study and how it was reported in The Sunday Times, among them these

One problem: the study's author, Harvard University physicist Alex Wissner-Gross, says he never mentions Google in the study. "For some reason, in their story on the study, the Times had an ax to grind with Google," Wissner-Gross told TechNewsWorld. "Our work has nothing to do with Google. Our focus was exclusively on the Web overall, and we found that it takes on average about 20 milligrams of CO2 per second to visit a Web site."

And the example involving tea kettles? "They did that. I have no idea where they got those statistics," Wissner-Gross said.

Why Google in particular? I think Mr. Wissner-Gross nailed it on the head:

The short answer is, it's a really easy way to sell papers. Google is a very successful company and it's a very easy way to get readership by making grandiose claims about them.

A closer look at the Sunday Times article brings up a familiar hodgepodge journalism style I've had issues with before at Pew Internet: citing research from a respected authority source, then bringing in components of a completely different story and blending it all together as one. The Sunday Times' additional claims:

Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian.

“It’s not an unreasonable comparison,” said Liam Newcombe, an expert on data centres at the British Computer Society. “It tells us how much energy westerners use on entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries.”

Though energy consumption by computers is growing - and the rate of growth is increasing - Newcombe argues that what matters most is the type of usage.

If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that’s good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.

Newcombe cites Second Life and Twitter, a rapidly growing website whose 3m users post millions of messages a month.

Personally, I'm surprised they didn't go after the #1 online bandwidth, energy and productivity-sucker there is according to my completely unscientific research and observation of my colleagues: checking out a suggested YouTube video then nonchalantly surfing the Related Videos that pop up after it.

My apologies if YouTube is blocked at your particular location due to those who have gone before you; and my suggestion on a quick way to make donuts per the embedded video below:



Where did you end up after that, if not at Krispy Kreme or trying not to sing 'b0rk b0rk b0rk' aloud while flinging pens at your colleagues?

Bottom line: Study the original research study publication whenever possible, especially if the soundbite you're picking up via a retweet on Twitter or an RSS headline news blurb is too catchy to be true, and question the credibility of all parties involved.

My soft spot: Healthcare journalism

With all the current discussion regarding Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN's chief medical correspondent, as the nominee for Surgeon General under President-elect Barack Obama, I thought I'd offer a glimpse into my own history for the perspective I'm coming from regarding healthcare and journalism.

In the fall of 1995, I was a young and idealistic student at Sonoma State University and part of Project Censored. Each week we received a stack of paper news media reports to review and match against selection criteria, then discussed them the following week to see if further research (mostly on the Nexis database in the library which contained records of news stories for journalists, quite different from what LexisNexis is now) would be justified to forward it to the much smaller batch of articles a national panel of journalism experts would review & vote to be one of the top 25 underreported stories of the year. The exact criteria and methodology of review have since changed, although so has the news media and the accessibility of information in ways I don't think we could even comprehend over 13 years ago. I was the last class with founder Carl Jensen & am no longer too familiar with the direction Project Censored (now under the Sociology department instead of Communication Studies) has gone since then.

The often-cited 2000 To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System report about medical errors being the 3rd highest killer in the United States? Old news to me by 5 years at that point. Two articles that ended up being combined into one and voted #12 for the spring 1996 book (1995 news stories) were in my article stacks: 180,000 Patients Die Annually From Treatment in Hospitals, based in part on a July 1995 JAMA adverse drug events (ADE) study. I apologize for the typos/funky wording in that HTML copy which may be from an optical character resolution (OCR) scan that wasn't post-edited well. I guarantee I used proper grammar in all text I wrote above my name. Can you see my writing style there? I still can. I used way too many commas in my youth and now I only use slightly too many... right? I remember balking at the emphasis on the names and careers of individuals in Chicago but being overridden by higher ups who wanted the personal touch in there.

Investigative journalism and librarianship are not all that far removed in the ability to research with ruthless efficiency under tight deadlines. Where there is a drastic difference between the fields is the pressure in journalism to not have your corporate owners, board members and advertisers look bad and lose revenue as a result of your research. For medical librarians (or any specialization), think about the amount of time you have personally invested in learning the medical and health care field, the information needs in it, and the specialized tools of the trade to be an effective researcher there. Journalists, even those with an MD or focused on health issues, do not usually have such background training nor much time or comprehensive access to the information sources we librarians do. Industry deregulation and the rate of media mergers that was a concern in the 1990s is eclipsed by the extent of the corporate media empires today.

This is why I can't offer an opinion about Dr. Gupta; I never watch CNN. It is hurting greatly in this economy but we always have and will continue to subscribe to a daily & Sunday print newspaper, The Seattle Times, from the independent and family-owned Seattle Times Company. They did an excellent job of researching methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in the state of Washington that led to the Department of Health announcing they would track MRSA rates as I mentioned in November. It's no longer common to see investigative journalism stories in corporate media since it takes a substantial amount of time and money to do the research for them... and you must also watch your back. This is why I hope people will continue to understand the value in and support independent media sources. They are truly better for our health!

'Staff infections': Where to turn for online information?

Last week a three part investigative journalism series (1, 2, and 3) was published by the Seattle Times about methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, or MRSA. This details how they did it when "state and federal governments don't bother to count MRSA cases." The Department of Health in Washington announced that they would begin tracking the incidence of MRSA in hospitals here as a result of the series.

S. aureus is also known as 'staph', so patients can have either a nasty MRSA infection or a regular old 'staph infection.' I always question how much time clinical staff are being able to spend with their patients to make sure they understand a diagnosis when they email family & friends about their 'staff infections'. I've seen this happen with enough frequency to suspect it isn't a fluke, so I decided to do a little research of my own along these lines.

It absolutely kills me as a medical librarian to admit that Google is on the ball with this common mishap, look what happens when you search for 'staff infection' there:



Google 'knows' you mean staph infection and redirects you accordingly in a fairly straightforward way.

Does consumer health gold standard MedlinePlus? Unfortunately, no. The 6th search result makes the connection only as a pronunciation key:

"... infection that is usually caused by staph (pronounced: staff ) bacteria. What Is a Staph Infection? Staph is the shortened name..." All the other search results on the front page talk about medical staff preventative measures.

WebMD? Their advertisers are but not their resources. All three Yahoo ads mention Staph Infections before a Hepatitis B resource, a video where staph infections are mentioned as a possible tattoo side effect (listed twice in a row), then a MRSA-titled resource that doesn't mention staph or staff but does mention infection in the preview.

One .gov that gets the 'staff infection' search right? Healthfinder.gov! Check it out:



Healthfinder is also making the staff and infection connection but at least pulling a Staph Infection article to the top of the resource list. We know that the Health News article to the right about MRSA screening for health workers would be of interest but someone searching for a 'staff infection' may not.

Google Flu Trends is helping to identify search patterns for that particular topic, what do the data look like for 'staff infection' in addition to MRSA & staph infection?



There is additional subregion data that gives some clues about health literacy needs in certain areas.. but is anyone else thinking and monitoring along these lines?

Terminology turpitude: New York Times & the Pew Internet 'report' gaffe

I hadn't yet read all of the 13 articles in Decoding Your Health, a September 30th insert that was in the New York Times, and had bookmarked only one (You're Sick. Now What?) because I liked the title.

When Patients Looking for Second, Third Opinions Online popped up in the Seattle Times with the New York Times original byline yesterday morning, I figured I'd give it a read... and was promptly frustrated.

And 75 percent of online patients with a chronic problem told the researchers "their last health search affected a decision about how to treat an illness or condition," according to a Pew Report released last month, "The Engaged E-Patient Population."

What?! The Engaged E-Patient Population is not a (high caliber, comprehensive & identifiable source of survey information) Pew Internet report. It is a (completely undefined term, this time a verbatim perspective column written for a company) memo.

I griped about this back on August 28th.

I understand the pressure in journalism to get articles out fast. Honestly, I do. It's precisely because I feel Pew is misleading everyone from students to researchers (and now journalists) who are taught to trust them as a data source by mixing these 'memos' in with their regular reports that I'm far more frustrated with them than the New York/Seattle Times.

Would it be too much to ask to get your miscellaneous side projects into their own clearly defined section of your website and leave your excellent report data alone to avoid a repeat of this, Pew Internet?