This story should be of interest to every NewsTrust Sci/Tech reader; it deals with the very core of Scientific Journalism: how non-experts can responsibly summarize and report on the work of experts. While this article certainly does not take stock of this issue as a whole, it provides an excellent, in depth look at a particular case where one academic clashes with the politicization of her work. I especially love this piece because it ask the reader to consider both how political agendas might distort the work of scientists, and how the political agendas of scientists might cause them to guard their work against an interpretation with which they may not agree. I certainly find NARTH guilty of manipulation; but the fact this piece exposes not simple good or evil but an underlying tension between academia and the world is the mark of great journalism.