[gabriel34]

IMO what is damaging to society is that there is no PR to science, so the press takes things that are not yet fully understood or verified by the academic community and publishes it as confirmed (studies say, confirm, etc.)

Groundbreaking results give much more press than their rebuttal, for example, see neutrinos faster than light or that arsenic consuming bacteria both of which were later dismissed in academic circles, but did not enjoyed the same treatment from the media.

[leoc]

That sounds very much like the UK's Science Media Centre: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/about-us/ . How good a thing the SMC has been is another question.

[vixen99]

I can't imagine what process you have in mind to put right what you see as a problem. Who is the arbiter of the press coverage? You are assuming unrealistic habits on the part of the passive observer of the results of research. Life isn't spent checking out media coverage or providing it with checks and balances unless there's a major issue involved which impinges on people's lives. The solution to your perceived difficulty is to check the facts for yourself from original sources and not expect some arbitrary secondary source to keep you up to date because that is something they are never going to do.