txtriffidranch has an oft-recurring rant about science reporting -- seems that even if the reporter understands the subject well enough to boil down the findings of a study accurately for a lay audience, their editor is all-too-prone to coming along and either A) making some changes to "jazz it up" (like an exciting-but-misleading headline, or attempting to link the subject to popular sci fi) or B) trimming for space in a way that just happens to introduce errors or eliminate necessary explanations. And once he got me started, I got into the habit of reading these things trying to guess which bits actually reflect the actual scientific findings and which are the journalistic skew to make it an "exciting story."

(Anti-feminist bias in reporting findings of gender-difference studies are something I've really gotten practiced in spotting. My personal favorite was the piece that linked high IQ and advanced training in women with lowered chances of marriage, and outright stated that it appeared that men really don't want to marry smart women. The alternate explanation, that smart women are less likely to settle for a bad relationship just to get married, and/or that successful career women can support themselves more easily without needing that second income, wasn't even suggested.)