So, how 'bout that episode of "The View"? Things they did right: show the diversity of the autism spectrum; show people at a range of ages; focus on families, diagnosis, and intervention; avoid getting into etiology or range of therapies. Things they did wrong: interrupt their guests as they attempted to make more nuanced points; acknowledge that not every kid is going to "recover"; consider that recovery may not be a desirable goal for some families. It ain't PBS; they didn't devote an hour to interviewing Fred Volkmar or Isabelle Rapin. But they didn't get bogged down in vaccines or biomedical hooha or whether autism is an epidemic or not; they didn't (or the families didn't) make autism sound like it's only a death sentence. So essentially: could have been much worse. I'll take it.

Meanwhile, there was an interesting article on how autism is covered in the media:
The researchers found that while 41 percent of research funding and published scientific papers on autism dealt with brain and behavior research, only 11 percent of newspaper stories in the United States, United Kingdom and Canada dealt with those issues. Instead, 48 percent of the media coverage dealt with environmental causes of autism, particularly the childhood MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella that was once linked with autism in a widely refuted study. Only 13 percent of published research was about environmental triggers of autism.

The article describes a phenomenon called "flocking," which means basically what it sounds like. One interesting point: people want to read about something tangible they can do. Genetics studies don't give that. Which is true: I usually skip over the genetics studies, b/c it is years and years and years etc. etc. from doing me or anyone I love any good:

Illes said the study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health, highlights the need for scientists to talk with the public about their work. She cited previous research showing that the media tends to report research that can result in action on the part of readers—lists of do's and don'ts to keep kids healthy, for example.

Although genetics research doesn't fall into that easy formula, Hallmayer, who studies the genetic causes of autism, said parents whose children have the disease would benefit from greater insights into the scientific process. "I think a better understanding of what we consider to be evidence and not evidence would help the public understand what they can expect out of scientific research," he said.