A UK clothing chain, popular discount retailer Primark, reacted swiftly to criticism of its padded bikini bras designed for girls as young as seven. The product has been withdrawn, and Primark announced it would donate any profits from the inappropriately sexualizing items to a children's charity. The bikinis were selling for £4 ($6).

The British tabloid The Sun broke the story last week and featured it prominently day after day. It congratulated itself on "a victory for The Sun" when Primark announced it would no longer sell the item. Meanwhile, its front page headlines generated considerable sales and not just among readers who were concerned with protecting the innocence of childhood. More often than not, the headlines drew one's attention to the "Paedo" (pedophile) angle on the story (as in "Paedo bikini banned" and "Paedo Heaven on High Street.") The Sun is known for its coverage of issues such as Don't grow up too soon, Miley, complete with photos that encourage the very behavior the text claims to criticize.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a new video on health fraud awareness. A worthy topic. It touches on weight loss products, HIV scams, cures for cancer and diabetes. What's noteworthy about the video is that it's SO boring. The inflections of the voiceover are totally inauthentic. It has the pacing of a 1970s newscast. There's almost no music. It's not sufficiently interesting to grab and hold anyone's attention.

News - and not just TV news -- has become infotainment. I would be the first to complain that this is a tragedy with major implications. But it's also a reality. To compete for attention, you need some creativity. The chances that this video had any input from a decent ad agency are slim.

The thing about Keith Olbermann is, I tend to agree with his positions far more than I care for his over-the-top, full-of-himself histrionic shtick. So I approached his "Special Commentary" on health care -- one hour of nothing but the largest talking head on TV -- with both interest and trepidation.

Olbermann called his Special Commentary "Health Care Reform: The Fight Against Death." Over and over again he returned with a flourish to the word "death," the subtext being "Look how heroic and iconoclastic I am to be talking about this unmentionable subject." The inevitability of death was his scare tactic: "You are going to die. We are all going to die." Yet at the same time, he accused his opponents of exploiting that same fear: The reason misguided folks are opposed to reform are the "death panel" scare tactics of the other side.

The current emotional polarization around health care reform is not so much about specific issues - rising medical costs, reprehensible insurance industry practices, the number of uninsured. It reflects a deep division in American culture that began in the sixties.

Forty years after Woodstock, it's clear that a major shift happened in that decade, politically, socially and psychologically. Despite the communal love fest, Americans had begun "bowling alone." Crime rates started to rise, as did divorce rates. Quite suddenly, in 1965, a vast majority of people stopped identifying themselves as Democrats or Republicans and became Independents.

There's been plenty of coverage of the Obama and McCain health plans during the presidential election campaign. I debated whether to contribute my opinion and decided against it. I think everyone is exhausted with media coverage. There's a nice Time Magazine article this week on "The 24-Minute News Cycle." It was reassuring to read that I'm not alone in refreshing the Google News page.

I can recommend some sources on the health care debate that go deeper than the rivalry of two candidates. There is a page put together by The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) called Election 2008. I especially liked the article "Three 'Inconvenient Truths' about Health Care" by V. R. Fuchs. I may write about that article later. Health care is not an issue that's going to disappear simply because the election frenzy is over.

Do you eat trans fats and high-fructose corn syrup? If you know the ingredients of what you're eating, you can choose to avoid certain foods. But what about the consumption of health news? There is an enormous appetite for the latest medical findings, but no labels to tell us the ingredients: how are the stories selected, what are the sources of information, how accurate is the reporting. If we knew the ingredients, would we choose to avoid the majority of stories on medical research and health? In this post, I'll discuss the ingredients of health news and, in the next post, I'll suggest a reliable source.