If they actually linked to the original content, it would allow their readers to come to their own interpretation. This would seriously endanger their (self-granted) status of “enlightened gatekeepers” of information by revealing how little their reporters actually know when writing articles.

In short, fat chance.

I’d love to know how/if they avoided selection bias in the samples.

But of course, the Post doesn’t mention the issue at all, let alone tell me that it was designed out cleverly. (The description doesn’t make it sound like selection bias was avoided, but it’s hard to tell. I mean, how are you going to get an already depressive kid to keep a “detailed time-use diary”?)

(I mean, seriously. Would it kill the online editions of newspapers to include links to the actual studies or polls when they do stories about studies and polls?

It’s like they don’t think anyone’s interested in anything but their writeup – or like they think we’re stupid.)

From the article:

In her research, “The Hurried Child: Myth vs. Reality,” Hofferth studied children ages 9 to 12, a group she says is most heavily involved in organized activities. The best off were the 58 percent with what she called a more balanced approach: one or two activities, for less than four hours, over the two days tracked in the study. But highly involved children, about 25 percent, did almost as well, she said.

It appears that the middle ground is the best spot to be.