Often you would have seen what so ever we are working as a researchers for years together, is quickly nullified by the journalist who takes a cursory or half baked look at your works. Often the researchers are shooed by the politicians and decision makers which takes the opinion of the local tabloids more seriously then their researchers who keep on presenting the data.
Somewhat obscene situation arises in context of current researchers of Climate change, pharmaceuticals, and space science where claims are immediatly countered by the media as either a joke or wishful thinking. Media relies on prophecy then on actual content of the research. They earmark their opinion based on viewership and negation of the knowledge added to society.
Moreoften it is quite seems right when researchers contradict and confront the media, which rakes a major battle of righteousness, as it happened in recent blockade of air traffic in Europe (after advise based on model data) and subsequent hue and cry leading to partial opening of the sky.
Climate change debate is also refuge to such phenomenon, actual research on the climate change takes a back seat and geo-politics or business takes front seat in discussion. These all courtsey should go to the print and electronic media.
Given these scenario..what can be done in methodological changes? This I suppose should also include the products generted from the research data in the mentioned areas. How interpretation can be copyrighted? Holding the others irresponsible when data is twisted to suit the taste of media.