Hi Mike

I think the conversation has moved happily on, but to answer your specific points:

If we can find the origin of the emergence of an issue I might call it the 'original' message rather than the 'correct' one; most people who send messages think their message is correct, on their terms. As a teacher I would encourage students to get the facts straight ('get the science right'), but this would be an active exercise of responsibility on their part, rather than deference. If they don't alter the message in some way (e.g. by framing) then they have missed the point of there being multiple voices in the public sphere. 

What you describe is called the hi-fidelity model in science communication studies, and Chris Dornan wrote the classic analysis of this. 

Thanks for plugging my book. It remains a useful survey but it does not go deeply into any one problem. When I cite other authors, I am recommending the best source I can think of, but I am also saying "look, these clever people think the same way as me". 😁

Thanks for your post

Jane

University of Cambridge PG Cert in Practical Science Communication, http://www.ice.cam.ac.uk/course/postgraduate-certificate-practical-science-communication