The health conversation around alcohol has become so binary it's almost useless. "Will kill you" vs "heart-healthy" doesn't help anyone make better decisions. Understanding your own relationship with it does. 2-3 days a week, intentionally chosen, with wines that actually matter to you — that's the real conversation worth having.
As editor in chief, I ran major health information websites (1M uniques/month) at Healthcentral.com in its heyday (1998) with broadcast physician Dr. Dean Edell for two years with a great team of mostly U.C. Berkeley Public Health MPH grads. I then ran a cancer genetics web site (DNA Sciences, no longer in existence) run by Silicon Valley A-Listers (Jim Clark). James Watson was on the board. Gay men had HIV research to lobby for and women rallied behind breast cancer causes (even though both of those diseases pale in comparison to the highest health risks for either gender ie heart disease.)
I worked closely with top tier epidemiologists in the U.S. NO ONE EVER FOUND A LINK TO BREAST CANCER FROM MODERATE ALCOHOL USE.
So okay, I have not kept up in the field, and maybe there is new evidence. But I have not seen that clearly explained.
Health risk journalism is a very specific area to report on. The epidemiologists who started Healthcentral.com also ran a health risk assessment program that analyzed your risk factors...and pointed you to resources to help you modify any that attracted your attention.
I do not agree that Robin's substandard coverage meets journalistic standards.
I do not think the NYT is deliberately targeting anti-alcohol messaging in stories. I think the issue is complete bias.
It's also a travesty of health journalism dollars. By far, the biggest health risks are related to diet–OBESITY. So why are they not focusing on diet?
Obesity risk factors are HUGE. And diet stories and risks drive website traffic!!!
I have run those websites maxing out traffic with stories on diet and on sexual topics. Those are the biggest click winners and profoundly valuable when based on substantive reporting.
Concerns about ultra processed food should be front and center.
They are completely underreported but also sexy and click-able. There's just an inexplicable gap here at NYT that can only be attributed to IGNORANCE.
Here’s a casual take from a lazy reader prone to broad, imprecise interpretations: the NYT is ok with you feeling good about your fat body ( because ‘body positivity’) as long as you don’t do something dangerous, like getting drunk on New Years Eve.
Thanks, Pam! I think obesity and UPF etc are actually harder for a vertical like Well to deal with, because you have to talk about systems, income and environment, and you need much more reporting and nuance. Alcohol is nice and easy. It comes down to, "Should you cut back?" (When they talk about diet, they tend to focus on specific ingredients or comparing one diet to another — the easy stuff.)
I actually do have a lot of data about website traffic (1M/uniques per month) and there are LOTS of great stories about UPF to be done. It's not complicated. It's just a question of editorial judgment. The medically relevant UPF stories are right there for the taking as CBS Morning showed today. It's about interviewing the right experts. And telling patient stories. The previous journalists covering health at NYT did a great job.
I think the kind of conversation he is having on the show is EXACTLY what consumers want to know and the advice health journalism needs to focus on…where there is AMPLE evidence, not very very thin data. People like to eat and want to know how to do it. Just look at the incredible success of the vegetarian recipes on NYT. I could come up with a dozen stories on UPF in a heartbeat that don’t require a lot of research. The experts are everywhere. And very popular. I think it is more a matter of someone having a personal grudge for reasons unknown…Did Robin have an ex who was an alcoholic? A parent? I have no evidence but a lot of questions as to why her coverage is so skewed. And why editors above her allow this. It is inexcusable to me to focus on alcohol when diet is costing this country a fortune. And ruining people’s lives with premature deaths etc. The mainstream medical world is also at fault. They are too afraid to talk about obesity when that is clearly the primary risk most people are facing.
I actually do have a lot of data about website traffic (1M/uniques per month) and there are LOTS of great stories about UPF to be done. It's not complicated. It's just a question of editorial judgment. The medically relevant UPF stories are right there for the taking as CBS Morning showed today. It's about interviewing the right experts. And telling patient stories.
I sense that a new Puritan age is well underway. Scolding, competitive purity, etc. are all the rage. Add the online-generation high anxiety; a terror of the realities of life. If I'm pure, I'll never die, never be vulnerable, wrong etc.
It’s the entirely predictable response to an anything goes culture that has obviously failed. Puritanism isn’t the answer either, but society needs guiderails or we’ll keep ping ponging between the 2.
Very true. I reckon America has a particularly big problem with the anything goes culture - not saying anyone else is free from it, but nearly all the crazy overindulgent stuff seems to emanate from US culture:
“This feeling of embarrassment, this shyness, this bashfulness, if you take that out of the people, then these people will do whatever they want to do. And that is the very definition of America, a people who have no shame, and therefore they do, whatever, they want, to do.” (- possibly James Baldwin…)
To me the problem is the perception that the media is so vested in a pre - formed opinion that it will not report or debate evidence to the contrary.
This could be construed as a combination of financial incentives and media bias.
So your example with alcohol could also be applied to climate change.
Even though the reporters may take their job seriously if the general audience lacks trust that could promote tunnel vision in reporting that attracts a niche audience (e.g. those more inclined to read the NYT) and worse raises the risk that serious medical or societal issues don’t get meritorious treatment.
I don’t think this problem is new by any standards but rather amplified since we’re so conditioned by reinforcement from social media.
Great work as ever. I wonder if the algorithm would ever show the NYT that people are responding positively to moderation stories and if reader resistance to extreme temperance messaging might actually drive a greater readership. Or if they'd ever try it.
It's worth noting that a common pattern in advocacy circles (and that is indeed the circle we are talking about here with regard to the NYT coverage) is to double down in more extreme ways when current coverage is not garnering the kind of attention it has in the past. What I think this likely means for coverage at the NYT is a focus on the alcohol industry and the ways it harms American society.
Could someone tell me if the stories are actually true or false, before we get to the “activism” criticisms? I came to this article to get an answer to that question, and its absence is like discovering a black hole based on the stars it blocks.
The short answer is that the claims in those articles are not fabricated — they are grounded in real studies. But alcohol research is complex and incomplete, which means the same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. There is genuine scientific disagreement about the risks at moderate levels of consumption and about how uncertainty should be communicated to the public.
There is also the issue that when the science is positive about alcohol it is attacked. For example, a recent paper from the American Heart Association that found drinking moderate amounts of alcohol was fine was framed as reviving a “debunked theory”.
This piece is about why one particular interpretation keeps recurring in coverage.
(I tried to link the relevant papers, but linking doesn't seem to work in the comments.)
The health conversation around alcohol has become so binary it's almost useless. "Will kill you" vs "heart-healthy" doesn't help anyone make better decisions. Understanding your own relationship with it does. 2-3 days a week, intentionally chosen, with wines that actually matter to you — that's the real conversation worth having.
FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/09/opinion/regulate-legalized-marijuana.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NVA.b3Mn.QLwPZIdTX1LI&smid=url-share
The number one cause of death is life. 🥂
As editor in chief, I ran major health information websites (1M uniques/month) at Healthcentral.com in its heyday (1998) with broadcast physician Dr. Dean Edell for two years with a great team of mostly U.C. Berkeley Public Health MPH grads. I then ran a cancer genetics web site (DNA Sciences, no longer in existence) run by Silicon Valley A-Listers (Jim Clark). James Watson was on the board. Gay men had HIV research to lobby for and women rallied behind breast cancer causes (even though both of those diseases pale in comparison to the highest health risks for either gender ie heart disease.)
I worked closely with top tier epidemiologists in the U.S. NO ONE EVER FOUND A LINK TO BREAST CANCER FROM MODERATE ALCOHOL USE.
So okay, I have not kept up in the field, and maybe there is new evidence. But I have not seen that clearly explained.
Health risk journalism is a very specific area to report on. The epidemiologists who started Healthcentral.com also ran a health risk assessment program that analyzed your risk factors...and pointed you to resources to help you modify any that attracted your attention.
I do not agree that Robin's substandard coverage meets journalistic standards.
I do not think the NYT is deliberately targeting anti-alcohol messaging in stories. I think the issue is complete bias.
It's also a travesty of health journalism dollars. By far, the biggest health risks are related to diet–OBESITY. So why are they not focusing on diet?
Obesity risk factors are HUGE. And diet stories and risks drive website traffic!!!
I have run those websites maxing out traffic with stories on diet and on sexual topics. Those are the biggest click winners and profoundly valuable when based on substantive reporting.
Concerns about ultra processed food should be front and center.
They are completely underreported but also sexy and click-able. There's just an inexplicable gap here at NYT that can only be attributed to IGNORANCE.
Here’s a casual take from a lazy reader prone to broad, imprecise interpretations: the NYT is ok with you feeling good about your fat body ( because ‘body positivity’) as long as you don’t do something dangerous, like getting drunk on New Years Eve.
Eating donuts is fine but having a glass of wine? You’re GONNA DIE!
Thanks, Pam! I think obesity and UPF etc are actually harder for a vertical like Well to deal with, because you have to talk about systems, income and environment, and you need much more reporting and nuance. Alcohol is nice and easy. It comes down to, "Should you cut back?" (When they talk about diet, they tend to focus on specific ingredients or comparing one diet to another — the easy stuff.)
No they are the most sought after stories. You do not need much research to interview the experts and tell patient stories-the staples.
I actually do have a lot of data about website traffic (1M/uniques per month) and there are LOTS of great stories about UPF to be done. It's not complicated. It's just a question of editorial judgment. The medically relevant UPF stories are right there for the taking as CBS Morning showed today. It's about interviewing the right experts. And telling patient stories. The previous journalists covering health at NYT did a great job.
CBS Morning this morning interview wit UPF foe and best selling author. https://youtu.be/JrGBXKt9R3s?si=hojASwfCNaHAKCoo
I think the kind of conversation he is having on the show is EXACTLY what consumers want to know and the advice health journalism needs to focus on…where there is AMPLE evidence, not very very thin data. People like to eat and want to know how to do it. Just look at the incredible success of the vegetarian recipes on NYT. I could come up with a dozen stories on UPF in a heartbeat that don’t require a lot of research. The experts are everywhere. And very popular. I think it is more a matter of someone having a personal grudge for reasons unknown…Did Robin have an ex who was an alcoholic? A parent? I have no evidence but a lot of questions as to why her coverage is so skewed. And why editors above her allow this. It is inexcusable to me to focus on alcohol when diet is costing this country a fortune. And ruining people’s lives with premature deaths etc. The mainstream medical world is also at fault. They are too afraid to talk about obesity when that is clearly the primary risk most people are facing.
I actually do have a lot of data about website traffic (1M/uniques per month) and there are LOTS of great stories about UPF to be done. It's not complicated. It's just a question of editorial judgment. The medically relevant UPF stories are right there for the taking as CBS Morning showed today. It's about interviewing the right experts. And telling patient stories.
CBS Morning this morning interview wit UPF foe and best selling author. https://youtu.be/JrGBXKt9R3s?si=hojASwfCNaHAKCoo
https://youtu.be/JrGBXKt9R3s?si=hojASwfCNaHAKCoo
I sense that a new Puritan age is well underway. Scolding, competitive purity, etc. are all the rage. Add the online-generation high anxiety; a terror of the realities of life. If I'm pure, I'll never die, never be vulnerable, wrong etc.
It’s the entirely predictable response to an anything goes culture that has obviously failed. Puritanism isn’t the answer either, but society needs guiderails or we’ll keep ping ponging between the 2.
Very true. I reckon America has a particularly big problem with the anything goes culture - not saying anyone else is free from it, but nearly all the crazy overindulgent stuff seems to emanate from US culture:
“This feeling of embarrassment, this shyness, this bashfulness, if you take that out of the people, then these people will do whatever they want to do. And that is the very definition of America, a people who have no shame, and therefore they do, whatever, they want, to do.” (- possibly James Baldwin…)
To me the problem is the perception that the media is so vested in a pre - formed opinion that it will not report or debate evidence to the contrary.
This could be construed as a combination of financial incentives and media bias.
So your example with alcohol could also be applied to climate change.
Even though the reporters may take their job seriously if the general audience lacks trust that could promote tunnel vision in reporting that attracts a niche audience (e.g. those more inclined to read the NYT) and worse raises the risk that serious medical or societal issues don’t get meritorious treatment.
I don’t think this problem is new by any standards but rather amplified since we’re so conditioned by reinforcement from social media.
Great work as ever. I wonder if the algorithm would ever show the NYT that people are responding positively to moderation stories and if reader resistance to extreme temperance messaging might actually drive a greater readership. Or if they'd ever try it.
They're starting to get it now. Recent comments suggest readers are sick of it.
It's worth noting that a common pattern in advocacy circles (and that is indeed the circle we are talking about here with regard to the NYT coverage) is to double down in more extreme ways when current coverage is not garnering the kind of attention it has in the past. What I think this likely means for coverage at the NYT is a focus on the alcohol industry and the ways it harms American society.
Could someone tell me if the stories are actually true or false, before we get to the “activism” criticisms? I came to this article to get an answer to that question, and its absence is like discovering a black hole based on the stars it blocks.
The short answer is that the claims in those articles are not fabricated — they are grounded in real studies. But alcohol research is complex and incomplete, which means the same body of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. There is genuine scientific disagreement about the risks at moderate levels of consumption and about how uncertainty should be communicated to the public.
There is also the issue that when the science is positive about alcohol it is attacked. For example, a recent paper from the American Heart Association that found drinking moderate amounts of alcohol was fine was framed as reviving a “debunked theory”.
This piece is about why one particular interpretation keeps recurring in coverage.
(I tried to link the relevant papers, but linking doesn't seem to work in the comments.)
That's a very astute point I hadn't considered. I guess we'll find out.
A deep dive into haemorrhoids! Ouch.
I don't know if you're a NY Times subscriber or not, but just in case, here is a gift article: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/11/well/live/hemorrhoids-symptoms-treatment.html?unlocked_article_code=1.NVA.IfkA.IosbpqtyCqkV&smid=url-share
After 60 years of what I consider moderate drinking I’ve not as yet got into the spirituality aspect
But I’ll definitely try next time I’m wondering why I fell for the wine critic’s advice 🙄
60 years! According to the NY Times you should be dead or bed-ridden by now.