http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-lay-scientist/2012/nov/29/leveson-inquiry-science-scepticism?CMP=twt_fd
Lord Justice Leveson’s 2000-page ‘B.F.R.’ contains a number of references to science reporting, with a particular emphasis on accuracy. Fiona Fox, a press officer who directs the Science Media Centre, clearly made a strong impression and is cited on numerous occasions. On page 22, Leveson accepts her view that “misleading and inaccurate reporting” of scientific issues “were… not covered by the complaints system,” and on page 80 he rightly makes the point that in specialist journalism “most non-specialist readers cannot easily judge for themselves what experts are telling us.” In other words: it is easy to mislead readers about science, and there are no real safeguards to stop it from happening.
All of the organizations who gave evidence to the Inquiry about science reporting cited the MMR debacle as “an example of how journalism that they allege was both inaccurate and unbalanced led to a media generated health scare.” This seems to have had weighed on Leveson’s mind, and he accepts that bad reporting on the MMR vaccines had “a widespread and harmful impact.” In other words, the Inquiry appears to agree that fear-mongering journalists in publications like the Mail and Private Eye screwed up so badly that it impacted public health; something which makes you wonder why it took phone-hacking to make this inquiry happen.
Since “the press is regarded as a reliable and responsible source of information,” Leveson believes that it should accurately reflect the balance and quality of evidence available. “This is not to accord undue weight to the views of the scientific and medical establishment; rather, it is to accord due recognition to the strength of the available evidence to ensure that the position is not misrepresented.” Later (page 691), he quotes Fiona Fox extensively on the issue of false balance:
more on link