British journalist Brian Deer was only expecting a routine story. What he got was a journalistic goldmine.

London England’s Sunday Times sent Deer to report on new findings by Dr. Andrew Wakefield that linked the Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism.

This report began a seven-year investigation, culminating in the British Medical Journal withdrawing the article and declaring it a fraud.

But the damage had been done. Thousands of people avoided vaccinating their children out of fear that they would develope autism.

The media had ran with the story, convincing people of its legitimacy. People refused to believe it was all a lie.

News media is supposed to inform people of the truth, but newspapers had convinced people of this lie. What had gone so wrong?

“The purpose of a newspaper is to sell the media product,” Deer says. “Vaccine scares make money for the media.”

“There was one editor, when faced with a controversial story, that I heard say ‘What the hell, we’re in the entertainment business,’” says Deer.

The business of the newspaper had gotten in the way of good reporting, not to mention the difficulty in reporting that kind of story. As a publisher of his own website, Deer knows the struggles in balancing quality stories with what appeals to the public.

“When you are a publisher, you see everything differently; you look at your products from the perspective of if it will make money,” he says. “These easy stories are just really attractive. That’s the reality of it.”

“It’s especially hard to ensure you are reporting the truth in science journalism,” says Ryerson Journalism Professor April Lindgren. “There is no way to show that the study isn’t true. Who’s going to say that the doctor is wrong?”

While Deer acknowledges this difficulty, he does not see it as an excuse. “The role of the journalist is to test the evidence. The easiest thing is to just get two-points of view,” he says.

“At some point, journalists have to accept that they are interpreting a framework of values and judgements on a material. One must hope that the journalist concerned has the ability to make that call responsibly,” Deer continues.

The internet age has also put up barriers to reporting the truth.

Media is highly competitive. “Competition is a major factor that pushes down on journalism,” Deer says. “There is a drive to get it up on the web first. To report a story quickly, but also accurately, is a constant challenge.”

Deer says remarks about the dangers of the internet. Anyone can go online and make a professional-looking website, he says.

The internet has its benefits, but it can also “act as a huge crank magnet,” Deer says. “It can create falsehoods and denigrate people.”

“It’s worse now than it was in the past. It used to be that when there was a false vaccine scare, the story would just blow over. But now, people that still believe this is true can go online and influence one another,” says Deer. “Internet credibility is a huge issue.”

“I would like to say that integrity wins out,” says Deer, “but I don’t know that it does.”

As consumers, the responsibility falls to us to interpret what we read. It is our responsibility to understand the world.

We can appreciate the good news and toss out the garbage.