Afraid or just underwhelmed

I'm struck by 'Drug tests find favour in white-collar sector' in today's SMH (here) and 'Tipples at work face testing times' (here). Both in the same paper. Both by Melissa Davey. Both very very thin. The difference is that the paragraph order has been changed. Perhaps the item's simply a work in progress ... or the SMH getting more bang for it's buck, with double exposure (presumably to the delight of the quoted enterprise) of the same content about the dangers - oh be afraid, be very very afraid - of employees ingesting substances.

One of the versions begins with the bang -

If you think a couple of glasses of wine at lunch or taking a few sleeping pills before bed is OK because you work a desk job or do not operate heavy machinery, take heed.

While workplace drug testing is legislated in the mining and transport industries, more white collar industries are showing interest, according to a drug testing service.

''In one case a fatigued office worker put an electric stapler through his thumb, while in a separate incident a worker came back from lunch after a couple of drinks and got his tie caught in a paper shredder,'' said the Australian Workplace Drug Testing Services director, Tony Graham.

While not legislated in most workplaces, office staff are being asked to fill up little white cups and get tested, Mr Graham said. The amount of drug tests his company carried out increased 25 per cent last year.

The other version leaves the shredder and stapler to the end of the article.

Tests are up by 25%? Whahoo! The SMH gives no indication of the baseline or relativities. Was Mr Graham's company (elsewhere promoted as "Totally Professional - Legally Defensible - Workplace Alcohol & Drug Testing Services") doing 500 or 500,000 or 5,000,000 tests? We don't know. Does the company have a major chunk of the market? Is it growing at the expense of Medvet - the entity that also proclaimed its professionalism and compliance with testing standards? Again, no indication.

What about privacy, employment and other law regarding workplace substance testing? No indication. No discussion.

Overall, it's disappointing journalism, the sort of writing that's prone to appear in the media 'silly season' when staff are on leave and editors are scratching for filler.

Less egregious repackaging by the SMH is evident in 'Implants advice off the mark' and 'Toothless health watchdog dithers on implants as women worry', an article by Michael Moore criticising the Therapeutic Goods Administration's handling of the implants scandal in France. Moore correctly highlights questions about regulatory incapacity at the TGA (noted here and here).