Nick Confessore credits the AP with reporting who has science on their side in the abstinence-only debate: At worst, reporters are agnostic, which allows them to be manipulated by front groups capable of producing slick white papers defending almost any conceivable position; at some papers, the reporters must give equal weight to both sides regardless of the evidence supporting those respective positions. (As my colleague Chris Mooney notes here, business groups had early success with this tactic in the area of tobacco science, and a more recent one with regards to climate change.) Argument is an important part of making good policy, but sometimes the evidence is pretty overwhelming in one area or another, and reporters should make note of that.