No problem for an experienced medical writer, I thought. I began to appreciate the difficulties that general journalists face when they have to cover a heavy science story and the occasional horrors that scientists face when a journalist asks them a few questions. Statistics were misinterpreted, and the tiny increase ballooned into a disaster. Columbia's conference was even-handed in serving hubris, pointing out the failures of both scientists and journalists. Otherwise, we are a terrific bunch of folks who are trying to educate doctors and the public whether they like it or not.
Science journalists consider themselves an elite.
But perhaps we view the major journals and their peer-review systems with too much respect and not enough skepticism. We rely on them for quality control of their contents, but sometimes they have feet of clay. We're well aware that the major journals tend to publish mostly the good news, not what doesn't work. We know there's an old-boy network. We may be skeptical about the way journals highlight their forthcoming articles, making it easy for us to cover what they want us to cover.