Just look at those TV and papers promoted by big Google
Mainstream science reporters have typically taken peer review as an official stamp of approval from the research community that a published finding is sufficiently robust to share with their readers. Yet this kind of evidence-based reporting is only as reliable as the evidence it reports on. This is one reason why the rise of the scientist (and non-scientist) as blogger, along with other forms of post-publication review, has been so valuable.
Editorial: A ranking of the best science-news outlets misjudges the relationship between research and reporting.