Dr Andrew Wakefield, who challenged established thinking over the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine, has received much coverage in the British press. But although some newspapers have presented him as a popular hero, fighting scientific officialdom on behalf of parents worried about autism, nearly half of the public believes that journalists should have subjected his claims to more scrutiny before reporting them. A study of what and how people learn about science from the media discovered that 48% of the public felt that when scientists go against the grain, as Wakefield did in suggesting a link between MMR and autism, the media should wait until other studies confirm those findings before covering them. Researchers from Cardiff University School of Journalism analysed the way in which science and science related issues were reported on television news, radio news, and in the press during seven and a half months in 2002. Their report, 'Towards a Better Map: Science, the Public and the Media,' published last month, found that what people knew usually corresponded with those aspects of a story that received most persistent coverage. In the case of MMR and autism, people were misled by the journalistic quest for balance in reporting.