Weeks later, as it becomes clear that the alien cult cloning story was a <a href="http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,57095,00.html">ridiculous hoax</a>, media watchdogs are asking why the story warranted wall-to-wall saturation coverage in the first place. Given that the Raelians presented absolutely no proof of their claim -- no photos, no DNA, no names, no places, no medical records, no details at all -- many question whether the story should have passed even the lowest thresholds of newsworthiness. -- says Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. The story shows some of the media's weaknesses in story selection. The Raelians timed their announcement for the post-Christmas slow news period, and held their press conferences in sunny Florida, where many journalists would like to be. But the story also says much about the media's ineptness in covering science, particularly when hot-button issues are at stake. While many outlets mixed significant skepticism into their initial reporting -- the New York Post's headline was 'CLONE KOOKS CLAIM SUCCESS -- most newspapers made the story front-page news based solely on the many-colored Brigitte Boisselier's word. This suggests many in the media continue to apply the same reporting they use for political or entertainment stories -- where they simply report the opinions of all 'sides' objectively -- to science, where objectivity requires waiting and reporting for proper evidence and proof.