Read the Fine Print: “Can [X] cause [Y]?”

“Can [X] cause [Y]?”

When a health headline asks a question, the answer is almost always "no."

Sounds like

A warning that X is dangerous.

Actually means

The article almost always answers its own question — "no," or "we don't know" — paragraphs down, where most people never reach.

HuffPost asked, "Can Sparkling Water Increase Your Risk Of Colorectal Cancer?" — then spent the rest of the piece taking it back. Its own experts said there's "no direct evidence," the exposure is "far below" harmful levels, and the science is unsettled. The headline implied; the body retracted; the headline is the part that travels.

It rides a chain of hedges — could, may, linked to, in theory — each one defensible, none of them adding up to the claim at the top. There's even a name for it: Betteridge's Law — any headline ending in a question mark can usually be answered "no."

Ask this

Find the paragraph where the experts answer the headline's question. If it's "no" or "we don't know yet," the headline was the story — and the story was nothing.

HuffPost, "Can Sparkling Water Increase Your Risk Of Colorectal Cancer?" (quotes verbatim); Betteridge's Law of Headlines (Ian Betteridge, 2009).

More decodes

“Links to”

It sounds like evidence. It isn't.

“Ties to”

Same energy as “links to” — zero specificity.

“Sources say”

Anonymous and unverifiable — “sources” can be one person with an agenda.

“Failed to respond”

Implies guilt — but sometimes the deadline was 20 minutes ago.

“Raised questions”

Who raised them? Often the reporter — sometimes one person.

“Some are saying”

The oldest trick in the book — unnamed “some” can be almost no one.

“Controversial”

Often just means someone, somewhere, complained.

“Amid concerns”

Whose concerns? Never specified.

“Officials say”

Which officials? From where? On the record?

“Is believed to”

Believed by whom? The grammar hides the source.

All decodes →