The issues become important for our discussion as criminologists are likely to be quoted in news stories. In addition to criminologists, a number of other social scientists have discussed these issues and most have expressed dissatisfaction with the majority of media coverage of social science. As a result, media coverage of social science research is not just a shortened and simplified version of an academic product. It is a different creation, crafted by different professionals according to different norms to serve a different purpose. Language becomes a key issue here, opening up the possibility of misinterpretation.
Statistics create another problem.
Furthermore, when a study merely suggests that something might be the case reporters sometimes present the results in a more black and white style. Finally, the fact that a study may be preliminary is on occasions omitted. In the worst case scenario, the reporter knows what story he or she wants to write in advance and uses social scientists and their research simply to support a preconceived idea. As social scientists have acquired prestige as knowledge experts in our society, journalists sometimes seek to use them to enhance their own credibility. McLaughlin believes broadcast journalists are more likely than print journalists to have a preconceived story-line while print journalists more frequently allow a story angle to develop out of the facts, because broadcast journalists have less time to work on individual stories.