There are many reasons why errors creep into science journalism, beyond what the journalist happens to write. Scientists can publish fraudulent papers, draw false conclusions from their experiments, or give misleading quotes. Press officers can paint results in a skewed light, omit or strip out context, and make up quotes entirely. Editors can assign reporters to tenuous stories. Sub-editors can introduce errors.

You already know this. I’m explicitly pointing it out because I have seen several instances where journalists have attempted to defend shoddy reporting – either by themselves or their colleagues – by citing this laundry list of reasons as mitigating factors.

The latest prominent example comes from no less than Paul Dacre himself – editor-in-chief of the Daily Mail.