But now let's move a little closer to home to the ABC's flagship science program, Catalyst, and its reporter Dr Maryanne Demasi.

Whose program 'Wi-Fried?' was last week found to be in breach of the ABC's standards of accuracy and impartiality.

DR MARYANNE DEMASI: You can't see it or hear it, but wi-fi blankets our homes, our cities and our schools. FRANK CLEGG: My concern is nobody can say that it's safe. Dr MARYANNE DEMASI: Do mobile phones cause brain cancer? And is wi-fi making us sick? In this episode, I investigate the latest research and advice about the safety of our modern wireless devices. — ABC, Catalyst, 16 February, 2016

Media Watch ripped into that Maryanne Demasi report back in February calling it unbalanced and 'shockingly one-sided'.

And the experts we talked to were even more scathing about the claims that wi-fi may be a damage to our health, with Monash University's Dr Geza Benke telling us that Demasi's program was in parts:

Biased ... ridiculous ... completely wrong. — Dr Geza Benke, Senior Research Fellow, Monash University, 18 February, 2016

Well an official ABC inquiry has now ruled that 'Wi-Fried?' was in parts biased, misleading and just plain wrong.

And Dr Demasi has been stood down from on-air duties at least until September while Catalyst's future is reviewed.

ABC gets an F for science blunders — Daily Telegraph, 7 July, 2016

ABC TV reporter and Catalyst host Dr Maryanne Demasi SUSPENDED — Daily Mail, 6 July, 2016

It is the second time in three years that Dr Demasi has landed herself in trouble.

Back in 2013, Media Watch slammed her two-part series, 'The Heart of the Matter' on cholesterol-reducing drugs called Statins.

We took no view on the science ... but we judged her reporting to be "Sensationalist" and "grossly unbalanced".

And a subsequent ABC inquiry also found one of the reports to be biased and in breach of editorial standards. After which both were removed from the Catalyst website.

So how and why did the ABC let Demasi do it again? As former Media Watch host Jonathan Holmes told The World Today last week:

JONATHAN HOLMES: I mean she should not have been allowed to make the same mistake twice. — ABC Radio, the World Today, 6 July, 2016

And it's not just twice. As we revealed in February, Dr Demasi had a third program, on anti depressants, canned in July 2015 after searing criticism of her reporting from an outside adjudicator.

And we've now learnt that a fourth Demasi program-suggesting a link between diet and Alzheimers-was pulled last month after it was referred up to the ABC's editorial director, Alan Sunderland.

So why did "Wi-Fried?' go to air, given that it was so flawed?

Last week, the ABC's Director of Television, Richard Finlayson said in a statement:

ABC TV takes responsibility for the broader decision-making process that resulted in the program going to air and acknowledges this is the second significant breach for the program in two years. — ABC TV, Statement from the Director of Television, 5 July, 2016

He also admitted that:

" ... greater care should have been taken in presenting complex and multiple points of view." — ABC TV, Statement from the Director of Television, 5 July, 2016

But why wasn't it?

And why does Catalyst still not have a full-time Executive Producer, as current affairs programs do?

But most of all, perhaps, why was Dr Demasi still reporting for the program after two strikes against her?

We asked the ABC's Alan Sunderland those questions and he told us:

The current breaches, which relate to content and not to individuals, were only finalised and confirmed in the past few days ... The responsibility for those breaches is shared by a range of people at the ABC. — Alan Sunderland, ABC Editorial Director, 8 July, 2016

He also said among other things:

Catalyst has a Commissioning Editor and a full-time Series Producer, and the team has consistently delivered high quality content that meets all the ABC's editorial standards and makes for compelling and respected programming, week after week for a great many years. — Alan Sunderland, ABC Editorial Director, 8 July, 2016

That may be so. And Catalyst works with roughly half the resources of Four Corners, for example, which puts the program's staff under great pressure.

But the ABC was warned early this year about the lack of oversight by independent producer Simon Nasht, who told Media Watch that the latest mishap at Catalyst:

... was an accident waiting to happen ... It was such an obvious problem and such a failure to deal with it. — Simon Nasht, Independent Producer, 7 July, 2016

Back in February, just days before the row over 'Wi-Fried?' blew up, Simon Nasht sent an email to ABC Managing Director Mark Scott expressing grave concerns about editorial controls at ABC Factual.

Nasht, who's a former ABC journalist with 25 years in the business and who now supplies programs to the ABC, was worried that controls were inadequate and planned cuts would weaken them further.

These are not 'soft' areas of programming. Such documentaries necessarily deal with highly complex and often controversial subjects. They confront strong interest groups and get noticed and therefore the risks to the ABC are great should they not have appropriate oversight. — Simon Nasht, Independent Producer, Email to Mark Scott, then ABC Managing Director, 8 February, 2016

And in case his warning wasn't clear enough, Nasht then made it even blunter:

I am sure I do not need to remind you of the damage done by the reports on Catalyst where very basic questions were not asked. Now rather than improving this oversight, it is being diminished. — Simon Nasht, Independent Producer, Email to Mark Scott, then ABC Managing Director, 8 February, 2016

The changes did not in fact go ahead, but controls weren't strengthened either.

Nasht got a response from the ABC's Director of TV Richard Finlayson telling him that cuts had been kept to a minimum and editorial oversight was strong enough.

But it soon became clear it was not.

As Catalyst again angered the critics.

So, what will now change? The ABC assures us there is no threat to Catalyst's existence.

But there are fears the program will opt for softer stories and lose its cutting edge.

We hope that's not the case and that it will be given the tools to do the job properly. But as Nasht told Media Watch:

The problem is it's playing in the public affairs space without any of the checks and balances in ABC News & Current Affairs. — Simon Nasht, Independent Producer, 7 July, 2016

And despite our criticism of those two Demasi programs, we hope Catalyst will continue to challenge scientific orthodoxy but do so on the basis of a fair review of the evidence.

Which is what science and journalism are supposed to be about.

As for Dr Demasi, we believe she has to go. Not least because she seems incapable of accepting that she's at fault.

Whether defending herself in print, where she's accused her critics of advocating censorship.

Whether defending herself in print, where she's accused her critics of advocating censorship.

Or tweeting links to studies that support her programs.

Or helping to shape Catalyst's response to the complaints about Wi-Fried, questioning their veracity.

Or branding them spurious and misleading.

Dr Demasi appears to believe that others are the problem and that she is a victim of injustice a crusader for truth against drug companies and powerful corporations.

Last week she retweeted a suggestion that she needs whistleblower protection.

Frankly we think that's ridiculous.

And we approached her for comment but we have not heard back from her. *** Note: Dr Demasi has since contacted Media Watch to say the ABC has responded on her behalf.