Killed, by corporate greed and cover-ups. Many families have a similar story. Controversy: Catalyst reporter Maryanne Demasi has been suspended after her investigation into mobile device radiation was found to have breached ABC standards. Credit:ABC This is why corporate conspiracies find fertile ground. Big business and government suppressed the truth about lead, thalidomide and other terrible things, the thinking goes – goodness knows what they're hiding about vaccines and wi-fi radiation! Knowing this, it's vital that science journalists do their jobs properly. Yet again, the ABC's Catalyst program has failed its viewers.

In an internal review, the national broadcaster found that an episode called Wi-Fried – an investigation into the health risks of mobile devices – breached its own editorial standards. The ABC will now apologise to viewers and suspend reporter Maryanne Demasi from on-air assignments. Already, it has pulled the episode from its website and iView platforms. It will also review the entire direction and strategy of the show. It's not the first time Maryanne Demasi has breached ABC editorial policies, after her 2013 report on cholesterol medications, known as statins, had to be pulled. Credit:Screenshot This comes after another report by Demasi – about medications known as statins – was found to have violated editorial standards, and was yanked from ABC's online platforms. Meanwhile, a report about anti-depressants by Demasi never made it to air: it was canned after concerns were raised inside the ABC, according to Media Watch. To be clear, the problem is not in investigating statins, anti-depressants or mobile radiation. The problem is in including quotes like this, from Frank Clegg, a safe technology advocate and former president of Microsoft in Canada. What's going on here? Catalyst presents a graph without labelling its X or Y axes. Credit:Screenshot

"My industry is on a campaign to bury the science and to confuse the message," Clegg claims, likening this to the way cigarette companies once operated. "I believe my industry is using that same model, in obfuscating the science, hiring scientists to cast doubt on the science, confusing government, and causing government to be constipated and not passing the legislation they need to pass." Dr Devra Davis with Catalyst reporter Maryanne Demasi in the episode Wi-Fried, since removed from online platforms by the ABC. Credit:Screenshot This is explosive stuff. A former Microsoft bigwig, blowing the whistle! But where's his proof? If Clegg supplied smoking gun documents, I didn't see them on Catalyst. You can't just "believe" such things on national television without solid evidence. What we did get is Clegg's claim that "China, Italy, Switzerland and Russia have [mobile radiation] standards that are 100 times safer than Canada's standards – and that's the same as Australia's standards."

A graph appeared, with its X axis and Y axis unlabelled. What was this meant to illustrate, precisely? Unfortunately, this vague approach typifies the entire episode. Six people were interviewed, telling us that radiation from mobile phones and wi-fi devices may be dangerous. Only one – Dr Ken Karipidis from ARPANSA, Australia's radiation protection agency – articulated the weight of scientific research: the evidence suggests there is little risk. He explained as much to Demasi, who responded with this dumb query: "So ARPANSA's not actually saying that these devices are safe?" This is an unfair question. If Demasi doesn't know that, she should.

Unless you strap human subjects to a chair and blast them with potentially carcinogenic levels of radiation (something an ethics committee might frown upon), you can't give a definitive answer. "We can only provide advice on the assessment of evidence," Karipidis rightly responded. "We do not provide guarantees of safety. I don't think a scientist can do that." Cut to Clegg – what are this guy's qualifications, by the way? – who says: "My concern is nobody can say that it's safe. All [that] my industry, and all government agencies say is, 'There is no proof of harm.' And to my mind, that's not the same as saying it's safe." No, it's not. But it is needless fearmongering. I can find you some highly-credentialled people – or self-appointed lobby group heads – who claim that vaccines create autism, humans don't cause climate change, or that non-organic berries make you ill.

But why would I? The point isn't just to "present a different view" or "challenge the science" for the sake of it. Often, it's not even enough to "present both sides". This is how fringe climate denialists end up hogging half a newspaper article when the CSIRO publishes concerning new research about global warming. It's a journalist's lazy attempt to look "balanced". If mobile devices are as potentially dangerous as Demasi's subjects suggest, the program failed to prosecute its case. What we got were unsubstantiated assertions of corporate conspiracy. Unchallenged – and since disputed – claims it is too early for the effects of mobile radiation to appear in the general population. Many of the allegations of radiation risk were not put to Karipidis, at least not on camera. Nor to any other scientist representing the mainstream view these devices are generally safe. Why not?

All viewpoints are not equally valid, nor deserving of equal weight. As philosophy lecturer Patrick Stokes tells his new students each year: "You're not entitled to your opinion. You're only entitled to what you can argue for ... The problem with 'I'm entitled to my opinion' is that, all too often, it's used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for 'I can say or think whatever I like'." It's not enough for a reporter to declare, "We're encouraging debate", then wash their hands of the consequences. Especially if those consequences include needless anxiety in viewers. And when a science program – on our national broadcaster, no less – repeats this mistake, that's a problem. Know more? Email Michael at mlallo@fairfaxmedia.com.au Twitter: @Michael_Lallo