Dan Gray is back.

Dan Gray is a three-time winner. He is now appearing on his third St. Louis television station, having started working as an anchor/reporter for KTVI (Channel 2) in April. He has worked two stints on KSDK (Channel 5) and one on KMOV (Channel 4). Gray also worked for stations in Omaha and Sacramento.

I, for one, am glad he is back on the air. Gray is a solid, hard-working newsman who is both a good reporter and anchor. Gray has won five Emmy awards, four of them for "best anchor." Few would describe Gray as "flashy." He is, however, a strong and credible performer.

Gray has taken over as 5 p.m. anchor, replacing Dick Ford. Ford continues to anchor the 9 p.m. hour newscast but the veteran newscaster asked Channel 2 to reduce his workload (actually, the request came quite some time ago but it has taken Channel 2 a while to get it done).

Channel 2 news director Brad Remington hit the nail on the head when he said Channel 2 "has made great strides in becoming the place to turn for local news, and Dan will be a great addition to the team."

I worked with Gray during my years at Channel 4 and found him to be dedicated to the viewers and easy to work with. I suspect they will find the same at Channel 2.

No wonder local news ratings are declining. On Channel 5's April 29 late news, the station spent more than five minutes on two "puff" pieces. First was a shameless self-promotional interview with talk show host/comedian Ellen Degeneres whose show airs on Channel 5. The "added-nothing-to-my-life" interview had been promoted earlier as an "exclusive" interview. Duh. Since Channel 5 carries her show, no one else would have wanted her interview anyway. That story was followed by a "cover story" on singles in St. Louis. While this could have been a hard news piece, it wasn't. It was simply a feature. As one person asked after watching the two pieces, "Why?"

I continue to hear people saying they are abandoning watching local news because of a lack of relevance. Whether it is too much crime news or wasted time like Channel 5's stories, people are finding other things to do or watch.

That's not to say there aren't excellent pieces of work on our local newscasts. There are. Just not enough.

One of the most important areas on newscasts is health reports. Many people get their information on health from their local news shows. Research by television stations shows health news is of primary interest to the audience.

A recently released study ought to cause concern among viewers. A University of Minnesota professor analyzed 840 health stories that aired February to May 2003 on the four largest Minneapolis-St. Paul stations.

The study's author, assistant professor of journalism Gary Schwitzer, who once headed CNN's medical news unit, writes, "The analysis identified a number of troublesome trends: brevity (although health news stories ran much longer during ratings periods), absence of reporter specialization, sensational claims not supported by data, hyperbole, commercialism, disregard for the uncertainty of clinical trials, baseless basic science predictions, single-source stories and a paucity of coverage of health policy."

While I haven't studied it scientifically, I am afraid the results would be similar in St. Louis, too. One difference might be that we have more reporters devoted to covering health as their beat. Despite that, reading his report causes one to realize there are many similarities.

The following are all examples he cites from the Minneapolis-St. Paul stations. Just look at them and you'll see these kinds of things apply in St. Louis as well. All of the material below, until the Channel 5 examples, is as written by Schwitzer: KMSP demonstrated the pitfalls of trying to cover health, medicine, or science in 22 seconds. (9 p.m. newscast, March 19, 2003.)

"The next time you yawn in someone's face, tell them it's because you care," the anchorman read. "Sounds lame, but it's true. Researchers at Drexel University say empathy causes us to yawn with others. People who are prone to contagious yawning scored high on tests measuring empathy. Researchers say their findings could help psychiatrists treat people with schizophrenia. Folks with that illness tend to lack any feelings for others."

No substantiation was given for the leap to a claim about an impact on treatment for schizophrenia. No independent source was interviewed.

KSTP aired this 17-second story: "Three states have halted smallpox vaccinations over concerns about dangerous side effects. But scientists say it may have another use for them. It might be used as a cancer treatment. Scientists are working on modifying the virus so it can carry genes that wake up the immune system. That will help the body fight tumors, we're told." (10 p.m. newscast, March 31, 2003.) There was no explanation of how a vaccine deemed too dangerous for use against smallpox would suddenly be any less dangerous if used against human cancer. There was also no explanation of whether the research had advanced beyond the test tube to animals or to humans. Does a station unquestioningly re port all "we're told'?

WCCO reported a mouse research story. "New hope for people with multiple sclerosis. Researchers have found that stem cells injected into mice can repair nerve damage and reduce symptoms. The procedure worked about 27 percent of the time. Scientists plan to try the same thing on monkeys using human stem cells." (5 p.m. newscast, April 17, 2003.) The 17-second story didn't explain how a procedure that failed 73 percent of the time in mice could be viewed as "new hope for people."

"Another reason for women to hit the gym," KARE announced in a 19-second story. "A study out today says male perspiration brightens a woman's mood. Researchers found that the scent of sweat reduced stress, induced relaxation and stimulated a woman's hormone levels. The findings could lead to new fertility therapies and treatment for PMS." (10 p.m. newscast, March 14, 2003.) Viewers were not given enough information to judge how the research was done, how the predictions of possible impact on fertility and PMS treatment could be made, or whether the study had any validity or meaning in their lives.

WCCO used hyperbole in describing a study that was just beginning. "One of the biggest breakthroughs ever in cancer treatment could be under way right now right here in Minnesota," the story began. It profiled a man named Tony, "hoping to receive the first vaccine tailored to fight HIS cancer. ... There's a chance in the trial Tony will get a placebo, but if he gets the vaccine and it works, it could put Tony's cancer in remission, giving him more time." (10 p.m. newscast, February 19, 2003.) There were some significant "ifs" in that line. The "if it works" was the crucial one. With the trial just beginning, there were no data on safety or efficacy, so not much more can be said except that the trial was beginning. Labeling this as possibly one of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of cancer treatment is not supported by evidence.

"News from the fight against cancer that everyone's been waiting to hear," KMSP announced. "A cancer vaccine that could become reality. Researchers at Geron Corporation say a preliminary attempt at a universal cancer vaccine appears safe. It shows signs it may work .... Initial tests on humans showed no serious side effects, but researchers stress the vaccine is in the very early stages of development." (9 p.m. newscast, April 7, 2003.)

This was a Phase I study, the primary intent of which is to analyze safety of an intervention, not efficacy. Many experiments fail after Phase I of research. The late Thomas Chalmers, former dean of Mt. Sinai School of Medicine, wrote (1968), "One only has to review the graveyard of discarded therapies to discover how many patients have benefited from being randomly assigned to a control group."

Study size should be an important factor in journalists' consideration of the newsworthiness of a study. Some unspecified results in eight of 12 study participants was good enough for WCCO to proclaim: "News of a medical breakthrough could lead to a lifesaving cure for people with cystic fibrosis. Doctors at the University Hospitals in Cleveland say they're on the right track. Their therapy involves dripping healthy copies of the cystic fibrosis gene into a patient's nasal passage. Two-thirds of a dozen patients tested showed improvement." (10 p.m. newscast, April 30, 2003.) The story did not explain how "improvement" was defined. No other sources were interviewed.

None of the stories in this analysis mentioned any financial ties between researchers and the medical industry.

While unscientific, just watching two local midday broadcasts seemed to support the research. Schwitzer talks of problems with brevity, claims not supported by data, hyperbole, commercialism and single-source stories. All of those showed up on April 20 as Channel 5 aired several brief health sto ries all in a row and Channel 2 aired a lengthy story voiced by local talent but actually produced by someone else somewhere else.

Channel 5 started with a story on buying drugs from Canada in which the U.S. government, and pharmacists were unveiling a campaign to discourage it. Jennifer Blome read, "Pharmacists say many of the drugs being sold haven't been approved for sale in the U.S., putting customers at risk for serious health problems." There was no specific information to support her contention. What's wrong with Canadian drugs? Just because the drugs haven't been approved, how does that put people at risk ... especially if they are okay for Canadians? After all, if it's good enough for Canadians, why can't we use them? How much risk? What does "serious" mean?

Co-anchor Kim Hibbs then read, "Well, the more alcohol you drink, the more you could be increasing your risk of colon cancer. A new study finds people who consume more than three alcoholic beverages per day have a high risk of developing colon cancer. The researchers also,found a stronger risk among heavy drinkers who were thin compared to those who were heavier. Moderate consumption of alcohol is thought to lower the risk of heart disease; however heavy consumption can lead to obesity and increase the risk of accidental injuries and even death."

This story raises far more questions than answers. Who did the study? Was it a valid scientific study or a small group? What is "high" risk? How much more risk? How should thin be defined? What is moderate drinking?

Hibbs then went on to the next story, "Well, you say you want to stay healthy? Then start working out. New research shows consistent strength training revs up the body's ability to fight infection. Working out three times a week for 30 minutes can make a huge difference. Besides fighting infections, you'll also increase your muscle strength and even lower your cholesterol."

Again, who did the research and what kind of study was it? Does it fight all infections? What kind does it fight? What is a "huge difference?" How much is muscle strength increased and cholesterol lowered? Is it significant?

Jennifer Blome wrapped it up reading, "If you are thinking about getting pregnant, you might want to step on the scale first. New research suggests your weight could play a role in your risk for dangerous complications during pregnancy. The study finds women with high amounts of body fats before becoming pregnant had the highest risk of developing ... high blood pressure during pregnancy. Researchers say the findings post strong evidence that fat tissue plays a role in the condition. High blood pressure during pregnancy can be deadly for both mother and baby."

By now, the same questions are getting obvious. Who are the researchers? What are "high amounts of body fat?" How much risk do they have? What is "greatest risk?"

This problem is not limited to Channel 5. All the stations fall into these trends as pointed out by Schwitzer.

A medical story narrated by Tom O'Neal stood out on the same day because it wasn't up to O'Neal's high standards but certainly smacked of the commercialism Schwitzer discussed. It turns out the only thing local about the story was O'Neal's narration. It was actually shot and produced by Fox's Phoenix station. Channel 2 picked up the story and much of the very same script, had O'Neal voice the story as if it were his, and aired it.

The story was about "full-body liposuction" in which large amounts of fat are removed in one session from multiple parts of the body.

The St. Louis version of the piece was more of an infomercial than a news item. At no point did the story look at the downside to this kind of surgery. Instead, it made full-body liposuction sound like a good idea.

How did this happen? The story, which originally aired in Phoenix on Feb. 25, was offered to other stations in the Fox network. Channel 2's special projects group took the material, rewrote a bit of it and handed it to O'Neal. He read the script having done no research of his own.

O'Neal said he produces 95 percent of his stories locally so this one was an exception.

The story began with an introduction reporting full body liposuction as the latest trend in the quest for the perfect body. The station offered no evidence of this.

The infomercial continued with O'Neal saying, "A little flab. A little nip and tuck. Some scoop and sculpt and hey, why not find that perfect self anyway?" Sounds like a commercial to me.

The story then showed glamorous pictures of "perfect" bodies (no indication if any of those pictures were of people who had gone through liposuction) as a 19-yearold woman talked about her upcoming procedure to help her look better. "Liposuction, the number one cosmetic surgery up 111 percent since 1997. Almost 400,000 performed in a year. Most of the patients are women. And they are getting younger."

O'Neal did not distinguish between regular and "full-body" liposuction with those statistics.

O'Neal then told viewers that Dr. Jack Friedland of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery says, "Today's young crowd has the cash" for the expensive procedure and "most use liposuction as a quick fix."

Then we heard Friedland say, "It should be considered the frosting on the cake."

Next we were introduced to a still heavy man named Jeff who had gone through the procedure.

"Surgery was a one-stop shop to help him drop over 100 pounds," said O'Neal, continuing to appear to promote the full-body liposuction. That line was in the original script but what O'Neal did not say (although it was in the original Phoenix piece) was the next line, "It's working for Jeff but medical professionals hope that's one trend that will not take off."

O'Neal also sounded like a commercial announcer as we saw a before and after picture and he said, "Just four weeks after Jackie's surgery, see the difference in the waist line. See the before. And after."

What was definitely missing from the story we saw was a better discussion of the potential downside of this kind of surgery. I have to think if O'Neal had done the piece, he would have made it far more balanced and useful for the audience.

O'Neal is an outstanding reporter who let other people put words in his mouth without being able to do his own work. The lesson here is to let O'Neal do his own stories. His credibility as a medical reporter is at stake. Let the anchors voice the imported stories. Maybe Channel 2 (and the other stations) in the interest of full disclosure ought to tell viewers when stories from other stations are used and exactly where they came from.

Length of Number of Percent of Total
Stories StoriesStoties

4 minutes +27 3%
3 minutes +52 6%
2 minutes + 17120%
1 minute +58369%
30 seconds or less42551%
15 minutes or less 61 7%

Tripp Frohlichstein owns Media Masters and consults with business, government and non-profit organizations. He will not comment on any television coverage if it involves his clients.