There’s nothing like the advancement of medical science to ignite the world’s media, whether convincing findings from randomised trials or controversial conclusions from meta-analyses that turn conventional knowledge upside down. As a result, ordinary men and women across the developed world are bombarded with scientific information in newspapers, on radio and television, and increasingly, through their computer screens as the worldwide web inexorably pushes back the boundaries of the media universe. There can be no other field of medical science that has a more intimate relationship with the media, and the world at large, than oncology. Almost every week a cancer story hits the headlines – at the time of writing, the news is about the surprisingly adverse effects of dietary fibre in increasing the risk of recurrence of colorectal adenoma. Scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the power of the media, and how to engage in a helpful relationship that serves to reflect the merits of their research accurately to the public. And it would be wrong to assume that scientists are just naive academics whose lack of media know-how renders them and their research vulnerable to media distortion and misrepresentation. Scientists, however rigorous their research, are just as likely to practice the art (or is it science?) of spin-doctoring. This tendency may reflect a desire for publicity, or the need to show to the world – and therefore their funders – that their research is important. There is no doubt that scientists need the media, and the media need the scientists, because journalists are under pressure to be the first with the news, to create the exclusive that will boost their newspaper’s circulation and their career prospects at the same time. But however good or bad the science, or the coverage it receives, how often do the scientists and the journalists consider the people whose thoughts and lives may be significantly influenced by this interaction between science and the media? One of the greatest challenges, especially in the potentially volatile field of oncology, lies in the media’s need to distil detailed, often complex, research into headlines and soundbites that will be digestible to their readers. The problem with headlines and soundbites is that they can never be more than a snapshot, and if they are not strictly accurate, the results can be devastating. In January this year, Peter Gotzsche and Ole Olsen from the Nordic Cochrane