The obvious answer is because it affects so many people. But that's been the case for many years, and yet months have gone by with no stories about the disease.

I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about the upcoming documentary. He asked me, "Why is this news?" When I was producing Nightline and someone asked me that question, my response was, "It's news because I say it is." I wasn't just being sarcastic. At every media company, there are a handful of people who have the responsibility each day of deciding what stories to cover. They decide what everyone else will see or read. They decide what's news.

So why is cancer news? The obvious answer is because it affects so many people. But that's been the case for many years, and yet months have gone by with no stories about the disease. Certainly the case of Elizabeth Edwards has focused more attention on it, just as Lance Armstrong's did before.

The flip side of all that is that some outlets, having done a story or two recently, probably feel that they've done cancer, at least for now. Time to move on to something else. We in the media have a notoriously short attention span. Find a story, cover it, move on.

So I was pretty surprised when I saw the front page of the Sunday New York Times. There in the center of the page was a story about chemo brain. The piece focused mainly on women who have gone through chemo for breast cancer, but I think all of us who have had chemo know exactly what they're talking about. That fuzziness that can come on with the drugs. In some cases, sadly, it seems not to go away. And the story said that chemo brain is finally being looked at as something real, something that needs to be treated.

I was glad to see the story given such prominence, and I have to admit I was surprised. So often stories about cancer deal with the "latest breakthrough" or the "next breakthrough" or, of course, the "next latest breakthrough." There was one other thing that I thought was really important about the piece in the Times. It didn't focus on experts or trends or the latest numbers showing rates of various things over the years. No, it did something much more important. It talked about what it's like to live with cancer. It talked about the patients and what they go through. It talked about us.