Robin tries to explain malpractice in science journalism.

In Nature, Colin Macilwain says science reporting is too uncritical:

[Science journalism] converts original scientific findings, via a production line of embargoed press releases from journals and universities, into a steady stream of largely uncritical stories. … In stark contrast to proper investigations of issues such as public corruption, corporate maleficence or industrial health and safety — essentially silly stories about science continue to fill newspapers and news broadcasts. Some science reporters are uneasy about this situation, but most accept it. … Most [scientists] seem to be largely content with a system that disguises the very human process of scientific discovery as a seamless stream of ingenious and barely disputed ‘breakthroughs’. Like other elites, researchers feel no great yearning to be held to account by the press. . .

Yes, science reporting is less critical than political, business, or sports reporting. Since the media is very competitive, readers/viewers must prefer it that way. But why?

First, we are far more suspicious of bids for dominance-status than for prestige-status. . .

Also, we like some critical reporting on sports, music, and literature because we are expected to choose sides in these areas as part of our identity. . .

But we are not supposed to have favorite positions on science disputes. Science is more like our communal religion, something that distinguishes us advanced insiders from those ignorant outsiders, and we are eager to signal being part of us and not them. It is like how, aside from worrying about power-grabs by our military leaders, we are not each supposed to have a different favorite war strategy for our troops – that would be divisive and we prefer to show that we are united against them. . .

Nah. It's journalistic malpractice. We just need a new generation of better science writers who live up to their putative fiduciary responsibilities.

It is simply false that there is no demand for better science journalism that challenges self serving press releases by noting their shortcomings and defects, and placing them in context. The demand for better journalism rises as the significance of the science issues for immediate application to individual lives and current policies increases. Issues such as health, food, environment, energy, sex, reproduction (not the same as sex), materials science, electronics etc. etc. may be of more public interest than esoteric physics issues, but even in these areas I see no evidence for the idea that "we are not supposed to have favorite positions on science disputes." Zero evidence. We may not have an opinion on some subject, or even any interest in it, but there is no pressure to conform with authoritarian strategies. But, even if there was we wouldn't cooperate. We do in fact have a variety of favorite war strategies. We do choose sides in war, just like sports.

There is no excuse for the sad state of science journalism, just as there is no excuse for the sad state of big media in general. In both cases I expect that it will be blogs and independent net writers who will provide the public service of higher quality investigative journalism since there is little revenue potential and little chance that the existing crop of science writers will step up.