I just finished a 4,500 word article that claimed to be a summary of what we know about the obesity epidemic. It was in a very slick blog that mostly reports on technology and society. While the writing style was good, it completely missed the point of how science works. A lot of competing evidence was presented without noting where consensus was. It was assumed that the controversy in the field meant we didn't know anything and that means it is folly to take any action. It feel for the arguments that professional science obfuscaters use.
There is good science reporting - but clearly not enough. A basic problem is very few scientists know how to communicate with the public - it is something that is rarely taught - and most journalists have no scientific background. A few steps are being taken to address both problems - the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Science at Stony Brook is a good example of a program that is making progress.