Are all facts worth the same weight?

“Then there's the problem of "balance"--the idea that reporters must give roughly equal space to two different "sides" of a controversy. When applied to science, especially in politicized areas, this media norm becomes extremely problematic. Should journalists really grant equal time to the small band of scientists who deny the causal relationship between HIV and AIDS when the vast majority of researchers accept the connection between the two? Should they split column space between the few remaining global warming "skeptics" and scientific experts who affirm the phenomenon's human causation? Again, experienced science journalists will know best how to cover such stories and will be aware of the scientific community's very justifiable abhorrence of unthinking "balance". - Chris Mooney

I believe that in the above quote from Chris Mooney, a scientific journalist, has several good points about science journalism.  1) not every fact has equal weight to bear, 2) we should strive for the truth rather than balance, and 3) the importance of reporting the FACTS in order to share information with the community, not confuse them.

All facts and claims are not of equal value.  If one scientist in the UK discovered that boogers are the ultimate cure for acne, we are likely to be a little skeptical.  Has anyone else done research on boogers? Is it everyone's boogers - or are just some people born endowed with noses of gold?  If the study has not been backed up, no matter how important the findings may be, there is always the chance for a fluke case.  A "miracle."  

In science, peer review is crucial.  It is necessary for research to be backed up by other scientists and the results to be validated in order to deem the study relevant.  Therefore, these studies that have gone through this process, should hold more weight.  

Truth: this should be the ultimate goal of any news story.  Before media attention, before balance, before anything, the truth should be what is reported.  If that means not including Madame G's famous "proven" cure in an article about excessive sweating, I think we can all survive the omission.

An important point to consider is the audience of most science journalists: normal people.  People that work 9-5 so they can pick up their kids after school and rush them to soccer practice.  Not people that have time to do their own research about whether or not we are causing global warming and "oh my god what do I do about the hole in the ozone from the entire can of hairspray I used this morning?!"  These people need the facts; not back and forth information that, as Mooney said,will only leave them with whiplash.  

Journalists need to focus on getting the story out there in the most concise and informative way possible.  That means only writing about stories that are relevant and backed by other scientists.