By now everyone has everyone has heard about the survey the gay UCLA PhD published which purported to demonstrate that contact with a gay canvasser can change people's opinions about gay marriage. The survey was later shown to be bogus. They've created another fissure in the credibility of social scientists and the journalists who aid and abet that mendacity.
Daniel J. Flynn in What the Faked Gay Marriage Study Says About Academia and the Media says this:
Ultimately, the fraudulent peer-reviewed study says more about the corruption of the media and academia than it does about the corruption of one activist professor. Journalists and professors ostensibly dedicated to the search for truth unravel the institutions they serve when they imagine themselves as already possessing the truth.
The Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, and other leading publications initially ran uncritical pieces on the research. Princeton hired Michael LaCour, the UCLA Ph.D. allegedly responsible for the faked data, as an assistant professor and Science published his co-authored article.
We needn't look any farther than the global warming movement to see examples of science subjugated by ideology with willing media accomplices.
It's a little bit like counterfeit money. If a fake twenty dollar bill shows up at a convenience store, you know there wasn't just one out there.