Withholding Key Facts Is Very Common in the Mainstream's Science Coverage

Some scientists (Oba and others) recently made an analysis of old meteorites, and claimed to have found some of the chemical subunits of DNA in such meteorites, simple chemicals such as cytosine and thymine. The mainstream media's reporting on this scientific activity gave us a classic example of how mainstream media withholds key facts that conflict with the narrative the media is trying to sell. 

There were four main relevant facts here:

(1) The DNA subunit chemicals supposedly found were found only in the tiniest traces of a few parts per billion.  The paper stating the scientific results plainly states this: "Pyrimidine nucleobases, such as cytosine and thymine, as well as their analogs containing a pyrimidine ring, were identified by their chromatographic retention times, accurate mass measurements of their parent masses, and mass fragmentation patterns in the MS/MS measurements (Supplementary Table 1), with concentrations ranging from 0.02 to 6 ppb (Table 2)." That ppb stands for parts per billion. 

(2) When scientists report finding chemicals in amounts of merely a few parts per billion, such claims are not very reliable, and are often disputed by other scientists. For example, last year scientists claimed to have found phosphine in the atmosphere of the planet Venus, with an abundance of merely 20 parts per billion. Later several other papers by other scientists disputed such a claim, and said that phosphine had not actually been detected in the atmosphere of Venus.  One paper by a single author states, "There is thus no significant evidence for phosphine absorption in the JCMT Venus spectra." Another paper with many co-authors is entitled, "No phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus." A third paper states there is "no statistical evidence for phosphine in the atmosphere of Venus."  Another paper says, "These findings, along with the recent papers by Encrenaz et al. (2020), Snellen et al. (2020), Lincowski et al. (2020), and Villanueva et al. (2020) undermine the reported detection of PH3 [phosphine] by Greaves et al. (2020a,b) and its possible biogenic origin." 

(3) When meteorite chemicals are reported in incredibly tiny trace amounts such as a few parts per billion, there is no way to reliably tell whether such chemicals were actually in the meteorite when it was in outer space, or whether such chemicals result from earthly contamination. 

(4) Two of the types of DNA subunit chemicals reportedly found were not found by previous scientists investigating the meteorites.  

In general, the mainstream media conveniently withheld most or all such facts in their coverage of the paper by Oba and others. None of the news stories mentioned that the chemicals found were reported in abundances of only a few parts per billion. None of the news stories pointed out that the reported abundances were no greater than the reported abundances of phosphine on Venus, in claims that were quickly disputed or debunked by other scientists.  Few of the news stories even mentioned the issue of terrestrial contamination, the fact that it is very hard or impossible to tell whether a chemical in a meteorite did or did not arise from contact with Earth life, particularly when the chemical is reported in only the tiniest trace amounts such as a few parts per billion.  Several of the mainstream media sources engaged in outrageous distortion and misinformation when covering the paper by Oba and others, giving us more of what we have in great abundance these days: science-flavored fake news. 

Here are examples of the misleading or incompetent coverage we got:

• The NBC News story (on www.nbcnews.com) failed to tell us that the chemicals were reported to have been found in abundances of only a few parts per billion,  and completely failed to tell us in any way that the chemicals were found in only the tiniest trace amounts.  The article quotes an unfounded claim by one of the study's authors that the study "buttresses the theory that meteorites could have been an important source of organic compounds necessary for the emergence of Earth’s first living organisms," failing to tell us that the reported abundances of a few parts per billion were so small that such a theory has not at all been buttressed. 
• A NASA page shamelessly has the headline "Could the blueprint for life have been generated in asteroids?" The idea that DNA is a blueprint for making living things is a mythical claim that some scientists have long advanced for ideological reasons. Having only low-level chemical information, DNA does not have any blueprint or recipe or algorithm for making an organism or any of its organs or any of its cells.  The NASA page failed to tell us that the chemicals were reported to have been found in abundances of only a few parts per billion,  and completely failed to tell us in any way that the chemicals were found in only the tiniest trace amounts. No mention is made of the issue of terrestrial contamination. 
• A Sky and Telescope story vaguely refers to "low concentrations" of the DNA subunit chemicals, but fails to tells its readers that the chemicals were reported to have been found in only the tiniest trace amounts of a few parts per billion. 
• A LiveScience.com story also fails to tells its readers that the chemicals were reported to have been found in only the tiniest trace amounts of a few parts per billion, and merely vaguely refers to "their scant presence in the meteorites."  
• A USA Today story  also fails to tells its readers that the chemicals were reported to have been found in only the tiniest trace amounts of a few parts per billion, and doesn't even tell its readers the chemicals were found in low amounts. 
• A Daily Mail story has a headline making the utterly fictional claim that DNA was found on meteorites.  A DNA molecule is an information-rich collection of a vast number of chemical subunits arranged to produce a huge library of functional information (the human genome has 3 billion nucleotide base pairs).  Finding some of these building blocks in an abundance of a few parts per billion is nothing like finding a DNA molecule. The Daily Mail's headline is as false as seeing a twig form the letter I, and describing this as finding an informative book (on the grounds that the letter I is one of the building blocks of books).  Totally failing to indicate that the chemicals were reported to have been found in only the tiniest trace amounts, the Daily Mail falsely claims the research gives a major boost to the theory of panspermia. 
• Another news source has the fake news headline "NASA scientists find evidence that life on Earth may have come from an asteroid. " This is followed by the even phonier fake news statement that "NASA scientists find evidence of origin of life from an asteroid."  No mention was made that the chemicals were reported to have been found in only the tiniest trace amounts. 

Such coverage is not surprising. It is merely the latest example of what is constantly going on in the mainstream media's coverage of science: the withholding of very relevant key facts, in order to better serve some ideological narrative that is being pushed, or some unfounded "important research" claim that is being made.  Below are other examples of such withholding:

• Neuroscience experimental studies claiming important results are typically reported in the mainstream press without any mention of the way-too-small study group sizes that were usually used, a defect that makes any study unreliable. No mention is made of the exact differences reported in brain scan studies (typically only about 1 part in 200, as we might expect to get from chance variations),  and we will get instead vague phrases such as statements that some brain regions "are more active." 
• When neuroscience experiments fail to do sample size calculations and fail to follow a blinding protocol (as usually happens), the mainstream press reports on such studies without telling us about such failures that cast doubt on the studies.  
• In innumerable mainstream discussions of DNA, often including misleading language describing DNA as a "blueprint of life" or a "recipe for life," we are not told that no one has discovered any specification in DNA of the overall structure of an organism, and that no one has has discovered any specification in DNA of the structure of an organ, and that no one has discovered any specification in DNA of the structure of a cell. 
• In innumerable mainstream discussions of evolution, the earthly appearance of complex life is depicted as a very gradual thing. We almost never hear mention of the fact that according to the fossil record all or almost all of the animal phyla (the main divisions of the animal kingdom) appeared during the same relatively short span (the Cambrian era), during the Cambrian Explosion. 
• Innumerable times in mainstream discussions of the brain, claims are made that synapses are the basis of memory. We almost never hear mention of three supremely relevant facts discrediting all such claims: (1) the fact that the average lifetime of protein molecules in synapses are only a thousandth (.001 percent) of the longest length of time that humans can remember things; (2) the fact that a chemical synapse (the main type of synapse) transmits a signal with a reliability of only between 10% and 50%; (3) the fact that every traversal across a synapse is a "speed bump."  A consequence of the these facts is that a synaptic network requiring thousands or millions of such synaptic traversals would be both extremely slow, extremely unreliable and extremely unstable (in contrast to human memory recall which occurs instantly and reliably). 
• Innumerable times in mainstream discussions of life in space, we are told inaccurately that Earth-like planets have been discovered. It is merely Earth-sized planets that have been discovered. No planet has ever been discovered with Earth-like characteristics (such as high oxygen levels), a fact conveniently omitted from most discussions of life in space. 
• In innumerable mainstream discussions of the brain including unfounded claims that brains are the storage place of memories and the source of human thinking, we get no mention of such basic facts as the fact that no neuroscientist has a detailed credible theory of how a brain could translate human learned information into synapse states or brain states, the fact that no neuroscientist can explain how a human is able to instantly retrieve a memory, the fact that no learned information has ever been found by studying the brain of a corpse,  the fact there is no known place in the brain where learned information could be stably stored for decades, and the fact that the brain lacks the things in human products that allow a quick retrieval of information (such as indexes and a coordinate system). 
• Innumerable times in mainstream discussions of the brain, the claim is made that the brain is the source of the human mind.  Countless facts that defy such a claim are conveniently omitted, such as the fact that people can think well and remember well after half or more of their brains have been removed (to treat severe seizures) or lost to disease (as discussed here and here), or the fact that, as one scientific paper states, in tests of intelligence "mouse lemurs performed surprisingly on par when compared with chimpanzees and orangutans, which have a 200-fold larger brain".  The mainstream media almost always fails to mention countless observations defying such claims that brains make minds, such as frequent reports of people suffering from cardiac arrest observing their bodies while floating above their bodies during out-of-body experiences (which should be impossible if your brain is producing your mind).  
• The basic facts of physical biological complexity are not presented in innumerable mainstream discussions of biological origins. Such facts can easily be stated: that humans have about 200 different types of cells each as functionally complex as a factory or a jet airplane, and that inside each human body there are roughly 20,000 types of complex inventions, there being some 20,000 different types of protein molecules in our body, each type being a different fine-tuned arrangement of hundreds of amino acid parts to achieve a particular functional end, with an average complexity of about 400 amino acids per protein molecule.  
• The mainstream media withholds coverage of paranormal experiences, which polls show a majority of people experience. A recent news story tells us, "Recent polling, conducted in October 2021 by Cinch Home Services, a leading home warranty company, indicates that 83% of American adults report having experienced paranormal activity in their homes," mentioning experiences such as lights turning on by themselves. We have roughly two hundred years of serious scientific research reporting the paranormal, much of it conducted by professors, physicians, scientists and long-standing organizations such as the Society for Psychical Research. But you will hear scarcely a word about such facts in the mainstream media.  As Jeffrey Mishlove PhD states, "Our academic, scientific, and religious institutions have failed to educate the public about 140 years of research into paranormal phenomena.”
• Endlessly withholding the fact of speculation when speculation occurs, the mainstream media very often uses inappropriate "discovery" language when announcing purely speculative work, such as a very recent press release using the headline "Revealing the secret language of dark matter" to refer to a "speculations heaped upon speculations" paper that did not reveal or discover anything. 
• Endlessly reproducing phony diagrams making it look like cells are not-very-complex things that have only a few organelles, mainstream discussions of cells will fail to tell us that cells typically have many thousands of mitochondria, that cells typically have hundreds of lysosomes, that cells have up to millions of ribosomes, and that cells have as many as hundreds of Golgi apparatus cisternae. 

I could give a hundred other examples of the withholding of key facts in science coverage by mainstream sources.  The withholding of key facts is one of the pillars of bad science journalism.  Other such pillars of bad science journalism are shown below.