Miriam Goldstein recently brought up a very important question in comments:
I would love to see you or Chris tackle this question – is media coverage where the science is inaccurate better than no media coverage? I fear that inflated claims like the ones in the NYT article may cause the public to discount the whole issue, once they find out that some of the facts are exaggerated or false.
The short answer is, of course, it depends. More science coverage is critically necessary if we're to foster broader public understanding, acceptance, and appreciation of science, BUT hyperbole and inaccurate stories frequently undermine good intentions.
Before diving in, I'd like to hear from readers... Is inaccurate media coverage of science better than no coverage at all?
