First, fairly representing "science" is a daunting task - scientists themselves are likely to give answers that range from unrealistic idealizations to worst-case examples. \n\nSecond, there are precious few, if any, trained scientists in any of the many media organizations. Worse, editors do not insist that reporters have a short list of experts, in each of the fields on which they report, to consult for perspective when another scientist publishes or makes an announcement in one of those fields. Instead, and particularly when it involves a politically controversial area such as climate change, stem cell research, or animal studies, the journalists fall back on their ever-ready, but dubious, "balance" policy which is satisfied by simply finding any noisy contrarian, regardless of merit, and quoting same. To the naive reader, the appearance of the two claims, together in the same piece without qualification, leads to the perception (rightly or wrongly) of equal status and credibility. That the media today thrives on ratings - and those ratings thrive on controversy - there is a not-too-subtle conflict of interest in profit-oriented media between straight-up reporting and reporting anything that is - or can be contrued to be - controversial. \n\nTherein lies most of the reason that "touch" has been lost between scientists and the public. While out-reach by scientists may help some, most such efforts will be nullified by the much more pervasive and intentional dumbing down, equating of unequals, and politicization by the media. The general drift toward questioning and challenging all authority, regardless of competence and integrity, probably accounts for most of the remaining reason.