http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/sep/24/1

Yes, but there should be no tolerance for obviously, provably wrong arguments. Tax cuts do not reduce the deficit. Global warming is a long term problem. Abstinence only education increases STI transmission rates and teen pregnancy. There has been no long-term, provable effect of conceal and carry on crime rates.

These things shouldn’t be matters of debate. They shouldn’t be things that people are allowed to use to play the refs to push their political agenda. Tit for tat is not an excuse when people are just wrong.

If “truth” means “the objective ways of the world”, then I’d rather see science bloggers and journalists trust the scientific method in uncovering more and more bits of the “truth”, concentrating therefore on applying the method rather than trying to trascend it because they “know” what the “truth” is.

You must be talking about the Forbes/Pepsi school of objectivity.

What if he is not confident he knows who is competent to judge?

Perhaps because the discipline of verification is so personal and so haphazardly communicated, it is also part of one of the great confusions of journalism- the concept of objectivity. The original meaning of this idea is now thoroughly misunderstood, and by and large lost.

When the concept originally evolved, it was not meant to imply that journalists were free of bias. Quite the contrary. The term began to appear as part of journalism after the turn of the century, particularly in the 1920s, out of a growing recognition that journalists were full of bias, often unconsciously. Objectivity called for journalists to develop a consistent method of testing information- a transparent approach to evidence- precisely so that personal and cultural biases would not undermine the accuracy of their work.

Science journalists have to guide readers through the reasoning, point out examples of good scientific method as well as potential fallacies, fill in background that a newcomer to the area wouldn’t know, to bridge the gap between the technical literature and the non-specialists. They have to apply scientific scepticism and critical thinking for those who do not know how to do it themselves, and in the process teach it by example.

Where there is controversy, they should not make judgements, but neither should they uncritically parrot the conclusions of either or both sides. They should ask each side what their evidence is, and then explain that in terms that the reader can understand and interpret. This deals with the issue of ‘false balance’, because either one side will have no evidence, or explaining it with proper clarity will make their position look so bad they’ll probably withdraw. Good science journalism should look like an essay tutorial on critical thinking; including assumptions and uncertainties, so the current state of knowledge can be understood. If the data supports it and is reported honestly, then the ‘truth’ of the matter will be obvious without needing to be stated.

The job of a science reporter is not to separate ‘true’ from ‘false’, but to enable the reader to come to a scientific judgement (or not) based on the evidence; to understand the science, or as much of it as they can. This isn’t always possible, of course, but where it isn’t, the journalist should definitely not be setting up a scientific authority to simply assert a ‘truth’ in the name of science, or worse, filter out views they cannot themselves evaluate but which they have been assured by trusted ‘experts’ are false. That would itself be opposed to scientific principles.