'zackly. I'm constantly seeing articles about some "new study" on illegal drugs and their effects, and the consensus is always changing.
Alot of these "studies" turn out to be half-assed/use highly flawed methods if you dig a little deeper into them. It's also good to know who the "scientists" referred to in the article are (government-employed, university, etc.) as that can lend some insight into possible biases/ conflicts of interest/ flaws in research.
Not to mention the fact that journalists will often miscontstrue the studies' methods, its findings, and the scientists' quotes, rendering their own articles virtually useless. I don't know if this "spin" is intentional or not (I'm sure it depends on the journalist) but there've been many times when I read an article where scientists were quoted directly, and then the journalist goes on to "recap" or "elaborate" and it doesn't even add up with what was quoted...kinda makes me embarassed for em almost.
/yesblazed