[jennyp]

My complaint is not with the research, but the sensationalist hype with which they bypass peer review and go straight to the press, baiting the press with laughably misleading assertions.

In my "job" as webmistress of Creation/Evolution: The Eternal Debate, I've been scouring the science news daily for a year & a half. The news stories you see invariably follow the press releases, which are issued by the universities or the journals to publicize the publication of the peer-reviewed studies.

IOW, when you read about a scientific breakthrough or new theory, it's almost always based on a peer-reviewed study. It's true that the headlines often make more sweeping claims than the articles themselves, many of which can be more forceful in their claims than the studies that they're based on. But for any story you'll always find one or two well-written articles that explore the nuances of the actual findings. Sometimes it takes a couple days for the more-informative article to come out. But sometimes not.

The point is, it's hardly ever like the cold-fusion fiasco.

[dangus]

Well, yes and no. The journal will approve some dull topic such as say, biochemists replicated hypothetical young-earth conditions (c. 4 billion years ago), and were able to generate nucleotides. But the university will scream "Life Created in a Bottle! Breath-taking discovery manages to spontaneously create building blocks of life in a jar," knowing full well that the reporters (who took a total of nine science credits after the 10th grade) will understand nothing but the sensationalist press release title which is a full-blown, outrageous lie which has zero to do with the reality of the science.