Pie Man's Guide to Science in the Press

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/01/for_gods_sake_have_bryan_apple.php

This site is a great deconstruction of a particularly woeful attempt as Science by a Journalist who clearly has no idea bout the subject. This is becoming an all to common issue.

Now, before I start, I should shoot myself in the foot. This subject is covered far better in the following blogs.
http://www.badscience.net/
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/
And many, many more (Take a peek at who I'm following if that's possible rather than putting together a page of links)

Anyway, following these sites for some time really gives you an impression of how poor science reporting in the media is. And in particular reporting on health related stories.

Previously health news didn't bother me. I was unfit, drank too much and ate the wrong foods, however now I have a child, and so while I still refuse to take too much responsibility in keeping myself running I am quite concerned about how to keep my daughter safe. And this is the problem. Ben Goldacre of bad science fame hits the nail on the head when he states that the press are only interested in 3 types of science news, The Miracle Cure, The Hidden Threat and "Crazy Boffins do something Mad". It also doesn't help that most Journalists see themselves as crusaders uncovering the Truth, when in fact, due to that requiring effort, they do little more than re-word press releases. This is why with all health stories. In fact, with all stories, you should check the facts yourself. However since people are concerned parents wondering if its safe to let your child near a wi-fi modem, I'll try as far a possible to stick to health.

SO, there is a story, reported in several papers and on TV that eating a bacon sandwich a day will make you really healthy. Now, we're all busy people (Well you are) so we don't have time to go on to pubmed and look for the peer reviewed paper published in a reputable journal. Its a shame that the online sources don't provide a link as it would at least show that the research has been looked at and had it methodology scrutinised as well as the interpretation of results. Regardless we can't check there, we need some easy information. Now, don't google, due to the way google presents results you could well be directed to a site that misleads, for example to the World Bacon Producer's website, which would mysteriously tell you that its true, fried bacon is good for you. Instead there are two websites that are your friend.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/ This lot really deserve more recognition. A simple goal to try and give out solid information about science. Check to see if they have anything on the subject.

Second should be a no-brainer http://www.nhs.uk/ yes, believe it or not, particularly in the case of health scares, they really try to get the real info out there. They even have a very interesting "Behind the Headlines" feature.

However, these two try their best, they can;t cover every idiot story. So first look is Dr*T's guide to consumer science as a starter
http://thinking-is-dangerous.blogspot.com/2008/03/bluffers-guide-to-consumer-related_25.html

But failing that, we finally get to my real guide, things that should raise warning signs.

1. Does this sound plausible. When you look at things like magnet therapy, does it really sound likely. This is open to your understanding of science but a good start

2. Is a study referred to? Again not often, for facts like that are not for the likes of us, but sometimes a university is quoted, look to see if the University is crowing about miracle breakthroughs.

3. Is there some claim of conspiracy. The Alternative health and the Anti-Vaccination crowds love to think that there is some big pharmaceutical conspiracy suppressing their efforts. However all conspiracies, in fact most things in general should be treated with skepticism. Journalists like conspiracies, because it looks like they're exposing the truth rather than re-hashing a press release. In reality, most people shout conspiracy when all evidence has proven their case false.

4. Does it claim to drastically change our understanding of science, because if it does it better have some really good evidence and if that's not even present then be sceptical.

5. Does it pander to your base desires. Beer is good for you, Fatty food makes us fitter, Burning fossil fuels actually makes trees grow, The Cake is not a lie. Its nice to think all these things are true, but in reality its usually the results of a poor to non-existent study by the marketing board of Carling/McDonalds/Shell/Aperture Science.

I hope this ramble will add my voice to trying to get people to understand a bit more about the absolute twaddle that regularly appears on our news reports about science, and perhaps shames a few journalists into doing some research (Any) before they report.

Again, just to re-iterate, if you've found this rant rambling or otherwise badly done, please look at the linked websites that do a far better job than I ever could.