Analyse whether the media makes a 'positive contribution' to the public's perception of science?Do the media - 1) Inform - Yes or No? - Why? 2)...

The media's contribution to the public's perception of science depends on the branch of science being discussed. Science that impinges on human outcomes stimulates debates and the media's approach to such topics definitely affects the public's perception. Case in point,  Paul Nowak writes,

In January, an Associated Press article about New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey signing a stem cell research bill, stated "Stem cells are produced in the first days of pregnancy and help create the human body."

The following day the Associated Press issued a "clarification" that offered the following correction: "The story should have explained that embryonic stem cells used for research are grown in a laboratory and do not involve pregnancy." The first article had already done the damage and readers formed their opinion based on that artitcle.

Another example of media not making a positive contribution to the public's perception of science is global warming. The media uses words like scientists claim which implies the scientific findings are not based on data but opinion. Often data is omitted from scientific articles or reports when presented in the media.

So, based on my experience with the media and its contribution to the public's perception of science is it does not leave a positive contributon. While some media outlets may make positive contributions, like Public Broadcasting Stations, and National Public Radio, these are few and far between, most media outlets do science a grave injustice.