A three-front assault.
One of the many problems with academia is that it allows nutcases to flourish.
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.
Woe unto you who hold politically incorrect beliefs. With the push of a button, Wikipedia can make you disappear.
One of the biggest problems of our hyperpartisan culture is that everything has been turned into a morbid game show. Gone are the days when politicians and the media acted in the best interest of the American people. Instead, we have manufactured controversy and faux outrage over the most mundane of events. Instead of world news, we get 24/7 coverage of the President's Twitter feed. And instead of serious analysis, we get programming that resembles some horrifying merger of Family Feud, Hunger Games, and Real Housewives of New Jersey.
This award needs to go to a media outlet that has credibility (in some people's eyes, anyway), yet consistently gets the science wrong, likely for ideological reasons. Using those criteria, the Times was the runaway winner. There isn't even a close second.
ACSH is in the business of promoting evidence-based science and debunking junk science. That rubs some people the wrong way.
We've been hard at work this year informing you of the latest developments in biomedical science, debunking junk science and bogus health claims, and explaining the science behind the headlines. Here are our 10 most popular articles of 2017.
These days having a conversation about politics and the state of our nation often devolves into an ideological pitched battle of wills. That's why this year my Christmas wish is for 24-hours of argument-free discourse.
When confronted with the truth, a prominent science journalist claimed that facts don't matter in op-eds. Science journalism is dead.
A website that's purportedly focused on rigorous science journalism has published a conspiratorial anti-glyphosate rant, written by an environmental activist with no relevant academic credentials.
That a person with such a hostile view toward industry-funded science serves on the editorial board of a major scientific journal is disturbing. That she possesses no academic qualifications to justify her position as "senior editor" is a scandal.