Science Communication

Years after his TV show, Bill Nye experienced a resurgence in popularity. But instead of the old, nerdy-but-lovable Bill Nye, we got Bill Nye 2.0, a somewhat cantankerous scold who clearly knows less about science than he leads on.
Scientific journals discriminate against industry scientists, unless, that is, they happen to work for the environmental or organic industries. Those scientists don't have to follow the same rules governing the disclosure of conflicts of interest that everybody else does.
The only honest people are journalists. Such self-serving naïveté appears to be the creed at the website Undark. It's an outlet that claims, apparently with a straight face, to be interested only in "true journalistic coverage of the sciences."
Why hire a PhD or a person with a bachelor's degree in science? Instead, it's cheaper and easier to hire a social media intern who's spent the last few years copying and pasting press releases about scary toxins and miracle vegetables.
What's the secret to a young girl wowing the internet with her knowledge of neurotransmitters and synapses? It's how she communicates the message. 
Only about 17% of Americans are "active science news consumers." At least most Americans seem to understand that the mainstream media is a terrible place to get science news.
Astrophysicist and science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson recently appeared on Conan O'Brien's TV show. As usual, he was engaging, charismatic and amusing. But when Dr. Tyson discussed microbiology and philosophy that's when his stars fell out of alignment.
The Pew Research Center asked scientists and non-scientists their opinions on various scientific topics: GMOs, global warming, pesticide usage, etc. The results are not surprising - there is a big gap between what those two groups think. The question is - why and what can be done to shrink the gap?