This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Elizabeth Neus
Cincinnati Enquirer Cincinnati, Ohio

JAMA. 1992;267(7):930.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—Koren and Klein¹ should have expanded their database search to include the month of September 1990 before deciding that reporters were biased against negative studies. If they had, they would have found numerous articles on the Jablon et al study,² the results of which were first announced at a major news conference in Washington, DC, on September 19, 1990. My employer ran that story on the front page; I was in Boston at the time and read a Washington Post version of the story on page 3 of the Boston Globe.³

Later, when the Wing et al⁴ study on leukemia in Oak Ridge, Tenn, workers appeared, it was also given front-page play in Cincinnati, Ohio.⁵ That study received more attention than its companion piece that day because the Jablon et al study had already been covered extensively and was, frankly, old . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?