David Spiegelhalter, writing at his Understanding Uncertainty blog, highlights a set of “basic guidelines for science coverage” which were “drawn up in consultation with scientists, science reporters, editors and sub editors” and submitted by the Science Media Centre to the Leveson Inquiry. David says “they are rather good” (admitting that he was consulted on a first draft). He says:
It will be interesting to see whether they are eventually endorsed by Leveson, or whether Editors voluntarily sign up to them.
Note that I present this information with no context or background, no independent expert quoted and no discussion of the limitations of the process that arrived at the guidelines. I’ve put a quote in the headline to make it seem more exciting while dodging the issue of editorialising. Perhaps I should claim the guidelines offer ‘a cure for bad science reporting’.