Watch Those Headlines

Many people have written about misleading headlines that omit context and detail — usually in the realm of political coverage. Here's a good example from medical research:

That's a big headline, which seems pretty clear. But, it turns out, it shouldn't be so clear. If a reader is only scanning the page, the takeaway that vitamin D supplements are probably not worth taking is untrue. 

The secondary heading, whose point size only about 50% larger than the text type, clarifies that the study was only looking at the effect of vitamin D on acute respiratory infections and that vitamin D "does have other benefits"... but the much larger headline makes no reference to that.

In the story itself, these important details are given on those other benefits:

It helps prevent musculoskeletal diseases such as rickets and osteomalacia...and is essential for absorbing calcium, reducing the risk of osteoporosis and bone fractures.

"So if people are already taking a vitamin D supplement for musculoskeletal health, either prescribed or over-the-counter, they should not stop taking it," [one of the study authors] said. "Our findings relate only to the question of protection against" acute respiratory infections.

So the study authors are explicit that their work should not be used to discontinue use of vitamin D for the reasons that most people who use it, but the headline blares a general message of its uselessness. 

Great job, Star Tribune. I guess this is an example of clickbait translating to print, with no regard for how it reflects the content of the story.

And just as an aside, what's with the capital V on Vitamin in the headline, when it's not capitalized in the story?

__

I don't know how the Washington Post headlined the story in its print edition, but the online headline reads "Vitamin D supplements may not help against acute respiratory infections."