Another source for the media is of course the Press Association. I don't know the process for news dissemination, whether for example those wishing to announce contact the PA and they release - but it would seem reasonable to assume that if the disseminating source makes a mistake then those in the media are as unlikely to check as they would with something from the science media centre. Similarly checking would be deemed unnecessary I suspect - for an announcement as opposed to an in-depth feature - if you are including quotes or reporting details from a source that is attributed.
However, not all media outlets necessarily report their source verbatum. And headlines I would suggest are most likey to get re-tweaked for reasons that seem to include sensationalism. Take the recent XMRV announcement. Now, the Press Association in this instance carried the headline:
Two viruses 'not linked' to CFS
http://www.google.com/hostednews/uk...Pu32PbUUbr8_dkE1g?docId=N0221761347888241621A
Compare that to The Daily Mail (and other snoozepapers):
Viruses 'are not to blame for ME': Study rules out old theory 'once and for all'
- Researchers thought bugs in blood may trigger illness
- But experts say latest study proves this was wrong
- Investigation done at New York's Columbia University
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2204765/Viruses-blame-ME-Study-rules-old-theory-all.html
Actually, it is rather interesting because when I received the alert from what I remember being the Press Association I am certain that they carried a headline: 'Viruses 'not linked' to CFS' Perhaps they went back and corrected it - or I am remembering incorrectly.
Anyway, this was a source of some concern for some patients (the Daily Mail version) but it is an example of sensationalism and/or simply reporting verbatim the original headline they (and many others) were provided with.
Next. I think we have to give some regard to 'time' and 'interest'. As I mentioned above - unless a media source is looking to write a feature article the time and effort they are likely to put into an announcement is minor I would suggest and even less so for something on the internet (that can be altered when commentators point to glaring anomalies) - indeed we are seeing this quite frequently.
Finally, (lest I bore the pants off of you all) I wanted to return briefly to generalisations and opinion. If an article is reporting a scientific study, and there is an inconsistency - something that one can challenge with a direct quote from the paper - then fine; but if it is the interpretation of the paper (or the paper itself) that an individual objects to - then one is on rather shakier ground: opinion vs. opinion.
Also just wanted to underscore a previous point above. In the Pemberton comments. I couldn't help but notice the 'usual' ploy of claiming the number of paper published as some sort of 'evidence' that our condition was 'real'. The rather prolific and somewhat renowned source of this latest example cited '8,000' from memory - which is something of a jump from what I recall as being similarly cited as '3,000' only last year.
Now I am sure that she would claim to have far more awareness of these 'facts' that I could possibly dream of but the point is better made above. And anyway, the vast majority of those '8,000' (assuming there are that many - which I doubt) would I suspect be 'psychological' or certainly regarded as 'damning' and 'wrong' by some in the 'community' and therefore not really something that could support this argument.