I already called this one out, but it gets even worse.
The author’s summary
In one sentence: I work with media professionals to ensure they have an opportunity to report on the world-class scientific research undertaken at the University of Montreal.
A typical example:
1. I take this: Nature “Acoelomorph flatworms are deuterostomes related to Xenoturbella” http://bit.ly/gNttFW
2. and turn it into this: “New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories” http://bit.ly/efsl3D
3. which becomes this: GlobalTV News “Canadian discovery questions living missing link” http://bit.ly/i2RN5H
3 leads logically from 2, if you assume that GlobalTV doesn’t understand evolution either. But 2 does not follow at all from 1. In fact, even writing that indicates a serious lack of basic knowledge about the topic.
One interesting thing about this, though, is that in this case the cycle of distortion and hype is much simpler than others have supposed.