But now let's flick the switch to the ABC where Catalyst reporter Dr Maryanne Demasi has done it again.

Yes, amazingly, she's created another storm of protest with her report on the supposed dangers of wi-fi and mobile phones.

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

Demasi's so-called 'investigation' was on an important and legitimate subject.

But the verdict next day from several experts was damning

Scientists slam Catalyst mobile cancer link — West Australian, 17 February, 2016

Remarkably, as you may know, this is not the first time one of Dr Demasi's offerings has been scorned in this way.

Back in 2013, Media Watch ripped into her two-part report on heart drugs called statins, amidst a similar row about the science.

PAUL BARRY: Now, Media Watch is not going to take sides in this scientific debate. But looking at the journalism we're almost as shocked as the doctors. Both episodes of Catalyst struck us as sensationalist and grossly unbalanced and some of their so-called 'experts' had questionable qualifications — ABC, Media Watch, 11 November, 2013

On that occasion, an ABC investigation found Catalyst to be in breach of the broadcaster's editorial standard of impartiality and Demasi's report was taken down from the Catalyst website.

Well, last week's program was not quite so bad but it made many of the same mistakes.

Dr Rodney Croft, who is a world expert in this field and director of the Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, told Media Watch:

They really gave the impression that there was something to worry about and they didn't let the viewer know that this was completely against what the scientific consensus says. I thought it was terrible to have an ABC program which is supposed to be scientific produce something like this. — Professor Rodney Croft, Australian Centre for Electromagnetic Bioeffects Research, Statement to Media Watch, 18 February, 2016

Dr Croft was not interviewed on the program.

He claims they called him beforehand and did not like his answers.

Also missing was anyone from Monash University, Australia's other centre of excellence on the health effects of mobile phones, such as Dr Geza Benke who told us the Catalyst program was in parts:

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

And he singled out one of the witnesses for Demasi's claim that mobile phones may be unsafe, a Canadian campaigner called Frank Clegg, who used to work for Microsoft.

What were his qualifications?... To say that Australia has the worst standards in the world is rubbish. The guy didn't have a clue what he was talking about. — Dr Geza Benke, Monash University, 18 February, 2016

But it wasn't just that experts like Croft and Benke didn't get a Guernsey.

It was that Demasi's program was shockingly one-sided.

Six witnesses were lined up to tell us that mobile phones and wi-fi may be dangerous to our health and only one, the regulator, was there to tell us that the evidence is they're safe

Even though the scientific consensus weighs heavily in the opposite direction.

And there was similar imbalance in the time each side was given-with 14 minutes to the prosecutors and just over two for the defence.

What's more, the program took its lead from a controversial American campaigner, scientist Dr Devra Davis.

And it seemed pretty clear Dr Demasi was ready to believe

DR MARYANNE DEMASI: Wow, so that, that penetrates almost to the other side of the ear. DR DEVRA DAVIS: Correct. DR MARYANNE DEMASI: That's incredible. DR DEVRA DAVIS: Yeah, it is. DR MARYANNE DEMASI: Now, do we know that this translates into health effects for the child? DR DEVRA DAVIS: No, we don't. DR MARYANNE DEMASI: So should we, should we be concerned? — ABC, Catalyst, 16 February, 2016

So was Davis challenged by Demasi on her views at all? Well, yes, just once.

DR MARYANNE DEMASI: Are you cherrypicking the data to suit your argument? DR DEVRA DAVIS: No, I'm not cherrypicking my work. — ABC, Catalyst, 16 February, 2016

That was all the scepticism we got.

And we reckon from ABC TV's flagship science program it's not good enough.

And many viewers who contacted us agree.

Reporter Maryanne Demasi has a track record in such biased science reporting on Catalyst ... ABC viewers deserve better. — David Roche, ABC viewer, Email to Media Watch, 17 February, 2016

My concern, as a science journalist, is that Catalyst again favoured views from the fringes of science. — Tim Dean, ABC viewer, Email to Media Watch, 18 February, 2016

We put these criticisms to the ABC and Maryanne Demasi.

What we got back was an eight page statement from the reporter claiming her program was adequately balanced:

No-one argued that mobile phones were dangerous. Catalyst included six people who had differing interpretations. — Dr Maryanne Demasi, Response to Media Watch, 22 February, 2016

Demasi also commented in relation to our witness tally:

You cannot divide this argument into 'sides'. — Dr Maryanne Demasi, Response to Media Watch, 22 February, 2016

Well, we think that's exactly what she did. And she gave too much weight to the side she favoured.

Demasi also told us she is been targeted in part because she's a woman.

In a rush to discredit this program many critics on social media have sought to personally smear the reputation of Dr Demasi and Dr Davis, two highly qualified scientists and females in the media. — Dr Maryanne Demasi, Response to Media Watch, 22 February, 2016

Demasi also points out that some of her harshest critics are the very ones who declined to appear.

As for Dr Rodney Croft, who was not invited on, Demasi told us

Dr Rodney Croft is NOT an expert in this area — Dr Maryanne Demasi, Response to Media Watch, 22 February, 2016

And he did not appear in the program she says, because he was

Not an appropriate person to interview ... and appeared to be out of his depth. — Dr Maryanne Demasi, Response to Media Watch, 22 February, 2016

We are not going to buy into that, but we do have concerns with many of her claims, which seem to miss the point that scientific journalism should be fair and balanced.

And as evidence that she still does not see the problem, Demasi tells us that her two programs on statins have now been been vindicated and that:

... we were found to breach impartiality, mainly because we did not include "factually erroneous" information. — Dr Maryanne Demasi, Response to Media Watch, 22 February, 2016

We don't think that's a fair assessment at all of why the programs on statins were removed from Catalyst's website.

But let's not limit our criticism to Dr Demasi.

Because this is now the third time her work has been found wanting.

Last July another of her programs on antidepressants was canned by the ABC before it went to air, after similar concerns were voiced.

And that makes it even more extraordinary in our view that the ABC should allow this to happen yet again.