A question and answer session conducted by MediaShift with Nobel Prize-winning scientist Steve Running has shed light on the two-edged sword that new media brings to the reporting of new science discoveries and developments. 

While traditional reporting publications are losing their control over science stories appearing in the media (a good thing), quality control over the stories that appear is declining, as stories appear in the public press before being vetted through peer review. According to Running, peer review is still the best quality control for facts, but the blogosphere does not have it. 

The trend of universities creating their own Websites and press releases instead of publishing through a traditional science journal also opens up new possibilities. Running sees this as a migration of science journalism from traditional media to newspaper offices. In this case, the onus is on the university's press office to make sure that releases are factual and accurate. 

One development that he lauded was the use of video as a form of communication from scientists to the public. He cites the NOAA climate change Website and how leading scientists are featured in video clips, allowing the public to hear directly from the scientists about what they think, what they have found, and why it matters. 

Ultimately, his conclusion is that it's a good thing that information is getting out more quickly and coming from a wider variety of sources. More news will reach more people. The downside is that some news may not be totally accurate.