Science reporters should be just as skeptical of their sources as any other reporters. Especially where money, power or honors are involved. The fact that most

Science reporters should be just as skeptical of their sources as any other reporters. Especially where money, power or honors are involved. The fact that most reporting on BICEP2 didn't even mention the politics behind it and the competition with the Planck experiment tells you a lot about the quality of coverage. I think it is quite clear that the original reporting of BICEP2 was over the top, and that talking with some of the group's competitors would have pointed to problems in the experiment and analysis. The original reporting sounded to me more like PR than journalism. Even pointing out the old joke that 5 sigma discoveries tend to be wrong half the time would have been helpful. > but of course they can be misled, just like the rest of us, by people who are nominally the experts in one corner of the field. And they should learn their lesson, and do better the next time. Unfortunately, this does not seem to happen (with a few notable exceptions).