If your work falls into either of those categories, it may find an audience, whether or not it has a vaudeville aspect. We have no comment on these allegations. The proliferation of media, now including myriad cable channels and websites, has created a vast hunger for information to fill them, and it's inevitable that certain hotly pursued stories will turn out to be insubstantial or worse. False or exaggerated charges of misconduct, nonetheless, can travel far before the complete truth appears, and public exoneration of the parties involved may or may not ensue. Never underestimate the difficulties that misinformation or disinformation can cause, particularly when a more scientifically accurate explanation doesn't fit easily into a sound bite.
Science establishes X with absolute certainty.
The lay public, by and large, resists concepts like uncertainty, risk, and statistical association. Readers and viewers want science to be authoritative, to prove that something is true or false. Precisely because journalism creates pressures in the direction of certainty, the wise researcher avoids yielding to this pressure and giving the public all the definitive answers it craves. If a reporter, publication, station, or network has a preordained agenda and is determined to be unreasonable in its treatment of a topic, there's little a researcher can do but minimize contact and be prepared to make energetic, principled rebuttals. Gaining familiarity with the track records of reporters is an excellent way to optimize your chances of getting intelligent, fair coverage.