Sometimes, but you at least know the slant of the scientist - intimately, apparently - and you don't always know the slant of the journalist. You don't know if they've been told to do a human interest piece on the scientist, or if they're out to make science look scary, or if they're out to schtump for science but they're just really bad at it. Add onto that the fact that some scientists are positively brilliant but less than articulate and you get a mushy soup of badness and broken dreams.
Then again, I am also wary of journalists, since I've looked at words attributed to me in a newspaper - as a direct quote, no less - and blinked since it was not what I had told the person, and skewed the words enough that it changed the meaning of what I said. Granted, the end result made me look smarter in come cases (the example I can think of off the top of my head was that one woman credited me as a double-major in biology and chemistry as opposed to a single-major biochemistry student; it's really not that difficult a concept) but they also hyped up things that didn't need/deserve hype.