Scare Tactics from the CDC?

Hmmm. Just wondering….is it a coincidence that on Thursday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released information on nationwide clinical-trial locations for the H1N1 virus, and then followed this up with the petrifying news a day later that 40 percent of the U.S. population may get the flu if the clinical trials don’t finish up on schedule.

I think not. Seems like a great way to rustle up otherwise unwilling volunteers, if you ask me.

Thursday’s news was relatively sedate. As the Washington Post reported in its article on the start of the clinical trials, the hysteria surrounding the outbreak has largely dissipated. However, deaths are still being reported this summer, including that of a girl who lived south of Seattle who died this week. A pregnant woman, also south of Seattle, went into a coma and has yet to realize she has given birth. And now, even Jose Padilla’s reported to have been diagnosed with swine flu. It’s lingering in a season that it shouldn’t be, and that’s downright disconcerting.

Seattle’s Group Health Cooperative (a paragon of medical cost-control, by the way) is one of the medical centers seeking clinical-trial volunteers guinea pigs. I contemplated driving up to the Pill Hill neighborhood where Seattle’s hospitals are concentrated to roll up a sleeve. If the U.S. has lined up to buy less than 2 million doses of the vaccine, and there are nearly 4 million of us…well, heck, that’s nuts.

But the chicken in me overcame the willingness to be a guinea pig. Who knows what other ingredients are in the vaccine? Apologies to my friends in the biomedical industry, but what if the speed with which the vaccine was created may have contributed to an increased potential for side effects? Having a daughter who had a major reaction to her first vaccination (the haemophilus influenza, or Hib, shot—a vaccine I was never given) made me pause.

Only for a day, though. Friday’s big news? Swine flu may infect 40 percent of the population over the next 2 years. Oh-kay. “Several hundred thousand could die if the vaccine campaign is not successful, “ adds the CDC. The timing of this announcement, right on the heels of the vaccine trial launch, strikes me as cruel and a bit conniving. I’m glad the government can’t force us to participate in this research, but at the same time, they’re not going to scare me into it. I understand the gravity and importance of this research, but they shouldn’t be using scare tactics to rope the public into helping.

UPDATED, 11:30 A.M. 7/25/09: Another factor that may contribute to public confusion: Citing limited resources, the CDC just announced will no longer track probable and confirmed cases of H1N1, a move that echoes the WHO's decision from last week to do the same. This sends a mixed message, with possible public ramifications. If the number of confirmed cases had continued to rise, and continued to be reported, the public would likely continue to perceive it as a danger (even though the number of cases reported and confirmed are much lower than the total, due to the limited number of testing facilities). Without this (admittedly lowballed) number, will the public pay it less attention, with preventive measures less likely to be taken? The graphic charts of confirmed cases and fatalities worldwide has helped raise public consciousness of the virus. What will happen now?

Health "Coverage" That Could Really Cost You

A friend was hit by a car while riding his bike in the twisty streets of Harvard Square. He was wearing a helmet during the crash, but the impact was severe enough to land him briefly in a coma.

When he came to in the hospital, the first words out of his mouth weren't "What happened?" or "Where am I?" but rather these: "Oh NO! I'm not insured!"

He was so upset that he tried to leave the hospital, concussion and all. Nurses had to sedate him (sadly, further boosting his bill).

I don't want to put myself or my family in that kind of situation. But my work contract is wrapping up, and I need insurance for at least 3 months. COBRA will run $392 a month—ouch. Yet it would be $700 monthly to add just little ole me to my husband's school district-sponsored insurance policy (which we aren't even allowed to do until September's open-enrollment period, which determines coverage for October). While that's ridiculously steep, at least our kids are covered "for free."

So, I'm shopping for an individual plan. And I'm finding out why so many young people either can’t afford or decide to forgo insurance coverage, as this MSNBC article points out.

Mostly, I want to be able to get refills on my asthma inhaler and allergy medicine (breathing is nice!), and I also don't want to bankrupt my family should I be hit by a car or blow my knee out while jogging.

While it's been disputed, one study indicates that as many as half of personal bankruptcies are related to medical bills, even though many of these folks have insurance. They went broke after finding it doesn't cover chemo, surgery, or other pricey procedures, or they had co-pays and co-insurance and deductible bills that added up, and up. So there's no way I'm skipping out on finding a plan.

Well, after some web surfing, I found a nice high-deductible policy from Regence that would run just $71 a month.

Cheap!

But penny wise, pound foolish.

Because in the future, if I were to be insured under another policy after Regence, I'd have to wait 9 months (!!) to have any of my asthma or allergy-related doctor visits or prescriptions covered. That's the mandatory "pre-existing condition waiting period" that bites you if you've been insured under a paltry "catastrophic" plan, due to recent changes in Washington State law. Other states have implemented similar measures, in the interest of preventing residents from being under-insured.

But the policy I was about to buy sure didn't look like a catastrophic plan--you know, the ones that cover you if you were hit by a car, but still make you pay an arm and a leg if you get strep throat. But sure enough, I found that any policy with a deductible is $1,750 or more is considered catastrophic coverage. 



This 9-month waiting period wasn't spelled out to me on the application form (at least, not anywhere that wasn't in inscrutable legalese, in a font bigger than size 7.5). I only found out because I had to call a customer service representative with a question on when the application was due for Sept. 1 coverage. He mentioned it offhand, like it was no big deal that only two of the policies offered on their site would let anyone avoid that extended waiting period.

And … a basic non-catastrophic policy would bump the fee to $276 a month. And oh, only 2 of the 7 individual plans on their site were non-catastrophic. I also needed to fill out a 33-page questionnaire on my health history.

Good thing I have a month to work on that! The co-insurance, strict preferred provider limitations, and annoyingly difficult-to-navigate provider directory seemed like no big deals after eyeing it. But the whole wool-being-pulled-over-the-eyes element made me want to certainly consider a number of other companies; at least the state offers a handy insurance-shopper's guide for doing so.

Sheesh. That COBRA policy is looking like a bargain, if only to keep my blood pressure down. (If yours is high, you may want to avoid this BusinessWeek story on insurance companies as monopolies.)

While I'm grateful that legislation passed by President Obama partially subsidizes COBRA payments (which would bring my monthly bill to $360 or so), I have to say that the universal coverage proposal, "rationing" and all, is looking better and better by the minute. I don't want any "Oh NO! I'm not insured!" moments in my future.

Boycott a Book, Save the U.S. Healthcare System

Ok, so there's a bit of hyperbole there, but What to Expect When You're Expecting needs to go away. It's been sitting for scores upon scores of weeks at or near the top of the New York Times bestselling advice titles. Every Sunday, there it is, making me apoplectic.

It should be called Culture of Fear: Pregnancy Edition, and if you ask me, it's very much responsible for keeping health-care costs in our country skyrocketing.

I've been writing for Fit Pregnancy magazine for nearly 10 years, including book reviews, and I'm a trained labor doula. I've also had two children born with the help of midwives. But I think it's a shame this book has more than 13 million copies in print. What to Expect is guaranteed to give any pregnant woman reason to worry unnecessarily.

Worrying and anxiety lead to increased adrenaline; adrenaline is capable of preventing or stopping labor, as it interferes with labor hormones including oxytocin. Penny Simkin, a physical therapist, author, longtime childbirth educator, and international lecturer on labor an birth--voted a "living legend" by Seattle magazine--recommends to the couples in her class that they avoid the book. One of my midwives implicated it in our country's asininely high c-section rate, which is over 31% and up to 40% in some communities. (The World Health Organization says it shouldn't be any higher than 15%.)

I give the book props for redesigning its cover for the 10th anniversary edition; no longer does a contemplative mom-to-be sit in a rocking chair, daydreaming in a schlumpy outfit. But the book's contents are downright frightening. Even its web site lists 67 potential symptoms or concerns of pregnancy. Sixty-seven!! For crying out loud. And the book's index is even more of a fright. Pregnancy is work enough; women don't need to be haunted by the names of rare genetic diseases with a 0.02% chance of occurrence.

A better option for pregnancy advice? The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth, by Henci Goer. The Thinking Woman's Guide focuses on evidence-based obstetrics and midwifery care. Evidence-based medicine is something President Obama keeps mentioning in his health-care reform talks. What to Expect reinforces our culture's distrust of the female body, assuming that the baby and mom are not healthy until proven otherwise, which encourages women to take every (expensive) prenatal test available "just in case." Midwifery--and just about every other pregnancy title out there--takes a more optimistic approach, recommending tests only if symptoms warrant.

A cesarean section--which fearful women can request without medical reason--costs up to $20,000. My kids' homebirths cost about $3,000 each--and included house calls for a week afterwards to check on the babies' growth.

Here are some dizzying stats, according to childbirth.org: "The Public Health Citizen's Research Group estimates that over one-half the cesareans performed in 1987 were unnecessary and resulted in 25,000 serious infections, 1.1 million extra hospital days and a cost of over $1 billion."

Seems to me that's a billion dollars that could be better spent on preventive care, or put toward caring for the under- or uninsured.

The Power of a Misleading Headline

Meow, I'm going to get catty here.

You'd think that yesterday was a slow news day or something. I guess the report on how the H1N1 (swine) flu virus resembles the 1918 Spanish flu virus wasn't significant enough to warrant much coverage or analysis (that may be the topic of another blog post!). You see, this headline hit the top of Yahoo's Most Popular page, and prompted more than 20,000 people to e-mail it to a friend:

Cats Do Control Humans, Study Finds

Twenty thousand people--a small town's worth!--were intrigued enough by this story to pass it on. The header sure makes it sound like the basis for a sci-fi movie, doesn't it? Personally, it made me envision a bunch of zombie-like people under a spell, shuffling to the grocery store for fresh salmon, per the request of their anthropomorphic felines, who greeted them upon their return with a "Mrrrow. What took you so long?" (Ok, watching Michael Jackson's "Thriller" video may have influenced my imagination a bit. But still.)

The headline nagged at me. The story sounded vaguely familiar. Hmm, I thought, thinking of how I had noticed at work just the day before that another study had come out about cat/human interactions. But that one had the much more mundane headline of "How Cats Get Food Bowl Filled." Zzzzz.

Could it be a coincidence that there was yet another story out on cat research so soon? Or, were they the same story, but with dramatically different headlines--one of which that was written to "pimp for clicks," or grab the attention of readers, despite not being very newsworthy?

Sadly, the latter was the case. The Yahoo headline sure souped up the story to sound more interesting than it really was. The research, published in Current Biology, essentially stated that cats change the tone of their purrs or meows to communicate different needs.

In a purr-fect world, news outlets would pay more attention to news that truly affects people, and not waste the public's time with overwrought headlines for stories on inconsequential topics.

Photo of kitten by Ian Britton, courtesy of freefoto.com.

Psst, Hey, Buddy, How Much for a Blog Post?

The New York Times reports this week on payola and product reviews on blog posts. While not entirely shocking, it discusses how some more popular bloggers, such as Colleen Padilla of classhymommy.com, are sent free products from companies hoping for positive reviews. "If she does not like a product, she simply doesn't post anything about it," the times writes of Padilla, whose site receives 60,000 visitors a month.

So... ClassyMommy doesn't give its readers the full picture. Sure, the Web site is helpful to parents, but it's sort of lying by omission, no? If a product doesn't pass muster, why is that so? What about products that aren't safe, and therefore get panned? And do its readers know that Padilla's reviews of Healthy Choice TV dinners are essentially sponsorships?

The NYT goes on to explain that the Federal Trade Commission is investigating this pay-for-play arrangement in blogs nationally, citing that consumers have a write to know.

I agree; I'm of the school that says free food always tastes better. And I admit to reluctantly, if briefly, engaging in undisclosed pay-for-play myself, when I was a staff book reviewer for Amazon. The company was under enormous pressure to become profitable in those days, and a book publisher had the bright idea of asking to pay Amazon to prominently feature certain titles for a certain length of time--known as "cooperative marketing" in the book business.

We soon learned that just about EVERY book publisher was willing to fork over cash in exchange for a review and a placement on the site, with homepage placements at a premium, and spots on other book sections--such as health, which I covered--going for a few thousand less.

Amazon's marketing managers went along with the offer, but not without an uproar from the book reviewers. We countered that our readers' trust would be tarnished, that it was a penny wise and pound foolish approach to revenue generation.

In fact, one editor was so peeved, she faxed a reporter friend at the New York Times, who promptly wrote a page-1 story about the situation. The PR emergency that followed was a low point for many of us, career-wise, but the upshot was that management agreed to designate paid placements as such.

But one of the marketers who disagreed with this disclosure countered with this: The books that are so attractively arranged on tables in the aisles of Barnes & Noble are placed there through co-op marketing money as well. Same with the cereal that's on sale at the end of the grocery-store aisles. Shouldn't ALL stores disclose this to their customers? Or are the customers too happy to stumble upon titles and products that they like to care that they're essentially being advertised to, without their knowledge?

Photo of falling coins by Ian Britton, courtesy of freefoto.com.

Now, Now, Don't Cry: Foolishness and the Onion's TV "Segments"

Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put To Sleep After Breaking Leg

I think the wry folks at The Onion will certainly win more Webbies for this: The "Today! Now!" TV-news spoofs. Some of the gut-bustingly funny segments include "Gymnast Shawn Johnson Put to Sleep After Breaking Leg" and "FDA Approves Depressant Drug for the Annoyingly Cheerful." These are not appropriate to watch anywhere where you shouldn't snort. Consider yourself warned: Hiccups are a distinct possibility.

From the just-so-slightly overdone makeup of the show's hostess to the potted dark-red orchids, to the overwrought music, a-bit-too-loud chuckling and dramatic zoom-out camera effects, the resemblances to real TV news coverage are many. So much so that, if you watch these clips on YouTube and venture to read the reader comments, you'll almost feel bad for the viewers who think the clips are real.

For the Shawn Johnson "story," one hapless reader wrote, "is this real? can anyone confirm this? if it is, it really p***** me off!" (sic). The back-and-forth that commenters get into are sometimes entertaining in and of themselves. But all in all, they reveal the pathetic state of media literacy in our country. C'mon people. The extraneous punctuation on "Today! Now!" wasn't a big-enough tip-off?

The amazing use of ex-CNN anchor Bobbie Battista in some of The Onion News Network's breaking-news segments might be one factor adding to the confusion, but overall, the percentage of watchers who get fooled is downright scary. For the sake of our country's future, let's just hope that a lot of those who are fooled are actually trying to fool us into believing they've been duped. One can hope, at least.

Don't Have a Cow: New York Times Art Critic Awestruck by Simpsons Stamps

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for "The Simpsons," and not just because watching it is one of the best ways to improve a crummy day. Likenesses of several landmarks in my Massachusetts hometown have wormed their way into the fabric of Springfield, thanks to Lance Wilder, one of the show's background designers, who grew up a few blocks away from me, and whose mother was our elementary-school music teacher.

Bart's prison-like school on the show is based on my even more suffocating middle school, and the town hall is modeled on the library where I spent so many hours as a kid (because we had no internet in ye olden days). Hometown lore says that Lance pulled three all-nighters in a row during finals week his senior year at the Rhode Island School of Design to create an audition tape that won over "Simpsons" creator Matt Groening, and has been working there ever since.

This May, the Simpsons family was immortalized on 44-cent stamps, and their simple yet evocative artistry have sent New York Times art critic Roberta Smith rhapsodizing over their perfection. While it took three months for her to need stamps badly enough to run to her nearest P.O. and take notice of them, the ordinarily restrained Smith comes close to gushing about these beauts.

You can tell she had a hard time restraining herself, but her prose glows. Among her compliments: Their "peerless expressions" "[project] maximum psychic and visual power" with their "succinct encapsulations of each character" and "extraordinary chromatic wattage." She even compares their artistry to that of Andy Warhol and sculptor Richard Serra (!), and asks, guilelessly, "Really, are these not among the best American stamps ever?"

While I shudder at how the hapless quintet of Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa and Maggie reflects upon our country, I have to say Smith's criticism dignifies the show and further elevates Mr. Groening's status of cultural genius. Bravo to the show, to Smith, and to the U.S. Postal Service!

How Long Might Your Next E.R. Visit Be?

Several years ago, a scary statistic circulated heavily in the press: The average managed-care doctor visit in the U.S. averaged a mere seven minutes.

I just read an even scarier health-related stat: A third of Americans who head to an emergency room for medical care will need to wait at least two hours.

In a Boston Globe article, New Republic writer Jonathan Cohn details how doctors and citizens in France and the Netherlands wouldn't trade places with U.S. citizens when it comes to medical care. He points out that usually we hear about Canada and Britain in this respect; the sentiment that America's health-care system is broken is spreading, apparently, and a two-hour typical E.R. wait is just one of the problems.

Just wondering--could this negative perception (entirely warranted, IMO) affect our tourism industry? Are people afraid to come to our country because they're afraid of the treatment--or lack thereof--they may receive if they become sick or get injured? And, as an extension of that, could our troubled health-care system eventually lead to a drop in immigration?

Hmmm....maybe that's what the Republicans' grand plan is when it comes to opposing Obama's health-care reforms?

Cohn's article sure made me want to trade places with the French. Instead of heading to an E.R. if you're very sick outside of your doctor's office hours, you're more likely to get a house call from a doctor on call. Ooh, la la.

My six-year-old son had an innovative idea for cutting down your E.R. wait time: Cover yourself with fake blood, like the kind he saw big kids use last Halloween. That might be something that gets the doctors' attention, he said.

Photo of Amsterdam canal by Ian Britton from FreeFoto.com.

Seattle Times' Web Search Stymies

One story that has Seattle abuzz (haha) this week is the potential liquor shortage the state may face, due to a software glitch at the State Liquor Board.

This story isn't just newsworthy to those Seattleites hoping to drink a gin or tonic or two now that summer's here. The state depends heavily on liquor taxes to fund road projects and even schools, as Washington is an income-tax-free state. Last I checked, it charged nearly $1.50 in tax per liter of hard liquor.

I first heard the news of the potential shortage from MSNBC.com, which picked up the story from local NBC affiliate KING5. I wanted to email the story to a friend who couldn't quite believe the news. The MSNBC/KING story is quite short, and I hoped the local press had fleshed out the story.

I had a heck of a time finding the story on the Seattle Times web site. I searched for "liquor" and then "liquor shortage," to no avail. I tried "liquor board," and "shortage" by itself. I was further dismayed to see the radio buttons on the Times' site defaults to their network sites, not the website itself, so for a few minutes, I was searching altogether in the wrong location.

A neighbor informed me that the story did indeed run in the Sunday paper, with the headline "Liquor Shortage Possible." Yet a search on that header yields nothing on their website. The online edition inexplicably has this mouthful instead: "Statewide Distribution Problem May Limit Alcohol Sales During Fourth of July Weekend."

Come again? The whole experience was so irritating I found myself wishing for a bourbon at 3 p.m.

Only by searching by the story's author, Jack Broom, was I able to find the story.

Readers shouldn't have to work so hard!!

Fourth Time's the Charm for Chantix?

More bad news for drugmakers today. Chantix, the prescription smoking-cessation aid from Pfizer, will now require a black box warning, the FDA said today. Reports that the drug may increase suicidality as well as seriously altered behavior aren't being taken lightly by regulators. 

Forbes.com mentioned something significant about this decision that many other media outlets didn't: This is the fourth (!) label change for the drug. Zyban, from GlaxoSmithKline, will also require the black box label. That pill is better known as Wellbutrin--the name used when it's sold as an antidepressant. But the FDA's edict will affect Pfizer more, as it's struggled to find another market blockbuster like Viagra. Chantix has been a big money maker for Pfizer in the past, but sales have plummeted as warning after warning has been slapped on the pills. 

While of course this decision was made to protect lives, MediaNewser worries it may mean higher prices for other Pfizer products across the board--and another hit to health consumers' already stressed wallets. 

Photo courtesy of FreeFoto.com.

A "Watershed" Moment in Journalism

Ok, a day old, but still sticking in my head: Brian Stelter writes in the New York Times of the new journalistic M.O., courtesy of the Iran protests: "publish first, ask questions later. If you still don't know the answer, ask your readers."  Also interesting in this article: a reporter from iReport.com, CNN's "citizen journalism" site, for the first time now sits alongside the other CNN reporters in the office.

Is the Next Tylenol Scare Upon Us?

Tylenol and other analgesics are under scrutiny this week by the FDA, due to reports of liver damage--some patients required liver transplants, and some have even died--from accidental overdoses of Tylenol. Back in May, the FDA recommended the packages of Tylenol have stronger warnings added. 

The FDA is also recommending the maximum adult dose be reduced to 650 mg...that's significantly less than the 1,000 mg most adults take when they pop two of the extra-strength kind. 

What I find interesting is that there are two spots on the Tylenol.com web site that hint about health issues related to Tylenol. But they're teeny tiny--and I mean teeny tiny (see above). Sorry, have to get my glasses to see that! 

Advil.com, on the other hand, which is also facing potential labeling changes, has a very in-your-face message on their homepage about 10 times bigger than the one on Tylenol's site. Not that I expect the average consumer to head to these companies' sites before taking their pills, but I'd expect traffic to these sites will likely increase when the FDA meeting concludes today and press coverage sees a boost. Advil's being much more transparent; Tylenol seems to be acting like a company that has something to hide.

The medical community's concerns about Tylenol go back years; University of Washington researchers have studied liver damage that occurs when acetaminophen is taken along with caffeine, and of of course combining the drug with alcohol also increases the potential for irreversible liver damage. 

Next time I have a headache, I'm pulling a grandma and will use an old-fashioned ice pack. 

If It Quacks Like A Duck

This morning, Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goodman gave her take on Twitter, the Internet, and Iran.

The Not-Quite-Twitter Revolution shows all the virtues and vices of the Internet. The ease and flow of information. The difficulty of knowing its accuracy and meaning. It’s like searching for medical advice in an online world of quacks and cures. If there’s anything we have learned, it’s that the need for guides - and dare I say trusted guides - is greater than ever.

As an editor, her comments made me sigh (a little, at least) with relief. Like a principal at a loud, bustling middle school who can rein in the rowdy students, the blogosphere--and Twitter--need some firm voices of reason to guide the masses. We're still working on figuring out who those people will be, and how their points of view and guidance can cut through the sargasso sea of online voices.

What Does the White House Think?

I love that Obama's posting policy updates on Facebook (and Twitter, though my FB account is less overwhelming and more useful for news like this). And something he mentioned in this statement on Iran may be one of the many quotes he'll be remembered for: "Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away." Gives me goosebumps. 

And a note on social media's role in the situation: Twitter's being given much of the credit for promoting, or at least raising awareness, of the uprising in Iran ("The Twitter Revolution, anyone?), yet the focus on social media's role in the situation is dampening the awareness, imo, of the human suffering taking place. Let's hope there are more tweets on fundraising and practical ways that Americans can be of assistance, instead of merely being informed of the madness taking place. The last report on MSNBC as I write this indicates Mir Hossein Mosavi is asking for a national strike to start if he's arrested. 

'Vanguard Journalism' Grows More Dangerous

With the splintering of the media into millions of blogs, it's growing more difficult to make an impact on an audience--let alone the 18-to-34 demographic. And that may be in part to blame for the imprisonment of two U.S. journalists.

This New York Times article illustrates how journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling, currently sentenced to 12 years in a North Korean labor camp for trespassing, may have been detained in part because their employer Current TV, was struggling for audience share, and the women were emboldened to get their story--on refugees--no matter how dangerous the pursuit.

An excerpt: “There’s an impetus with any upstart news organization that you have to be bolder and you have to be more aggressive than other news organizations to get attention for your stories,” said Kevin Sites, a freelance journalist who covered conflicts for Yahoo. “That has to be admired. That also has a real inherent risk in it.”

The Blogosphere Gets Punk'd

Hilarious. 

Remember playing telephone as a kid? "She sells sea shells by the seashore" would morph into nonsense once it made it past just two or three kids. 

Check out this cluster, compliments of Twitter. The 19-hour timeline is especially enlightening. Bloggers and journalists didn't bother to check facts, and a rumor spread like wildfire, mostly thanks to Twitter. 

Here, media outlets from MSNBC to the New York Times pick up an AP story that was based on a Tweet that was based on a not exactly fact-based Variety story that involves Ashton Kutcher and--get this--Twitter's (alleged) plans for starting a TV show. Not until Jay Rosen of NYU thinks to go straight to the source does the truth come out. 

Confession: MSN Entertainment ran the AP story in a prominent chunk of online real estate, next to a photo of Kutcher. I don't have the stats on how many readers clicked, but my conservative estimate is a million or more--before I spotted this story around 4:30 PST and had the editor yank the link.

 http://www.mediabistro.com/baynewser/soc_media/twitter_tv_show_story_burns_some_journos_makes_others_shine_117367.asp