I agree perdition, the need to appeal to the masses (a least what some believe appeals to the masses, I think people are underestimated at times) results in some really crappy science reporting.
I really wish that I had, several decades ago, saved an article from the Seattle PI. This article was a report about a new ancient fossil primate from Texas (cannot recall the details, would have been ~87-88). What stood out about an otherwise well written story was the headline and the concluding sentence. The headline was something like "New Fossil Challenges Evolution" or some such nonsense, when iirc it wasn't a even new species but a new older find of a known group. And the worst was the concluding paragraph, which said something like "Scientists formerly believed that humans evolved in Africa". The main body of the article consisted of statements by researchers and was basically accurate. I could just envision some editor tacking on an 'improved' headline and conclusion to make the story more exciting!
This had a real effect on how I view science reporting, and little since has changed my view. It is really unfortunate that we cannot get the word out in a better way consistently.
Doctor Bashir: "Of all the stories you told me, which were true and which weren't?"
Elim Garak: "My dear Doctor, they're all true"
Doctor Bashir: "Even the lies?"
Elim Garak: "Especially the lies"
™ Version 4.2
