The most terrifying moment in journalism occurs when two scientific studies thump on your desk simultaneously. One study, from Ph.D. Smith, says, roughly, that the sky is falling. The other study, by Ph.D. Jones, says, roughly, that the sky is just fine. In fact, the sky may be rising. These studies can be about the air we breathe or the water we drink or the food we eat or the drugs we take. The anxiety attack is quick and sure.
What to do, as the clock on the wall ticks toward deadline? Most journalists (including those of us who produce science television) face such moments armed only with a semester or two of hard science. The practical options reduce to these: 1) Read the studies and try to make sense of them. This never happens. 2) Yield to the natural instinct and fire off a slightly hedged version of “the sky is falling.” This happens only occasionally, but still too often: Journalistic careers are not built, after all, on thick files of “the sky is just fine” stories. 3) Search for an authoritative source, a credible third party on which to hang the story. This is the option of choice — and the source of serious problems now emerging in the scientific community.
