Pericles, thanks for the input.

For me, I don’t think there is anything wrong with science news becoming a ‘branch of the entertainment industry’ – much better than ‘sex in the city’ or ‘desperate housewives’, imo. However, I do have issue with news presenters or journalists that can’t accurately present or report science news, e.g. James Delingpole in Nurse’s documentary. But, what’s worse? Poor journalism or editorial policy that doesn’t present science news with due diligence ... bring back Media Watch I say.

You don’t need a first-class degree in science to understand it (provided it is communicated well). Why? Because ‘easy-to-digest sound bites’ say more about the comprehension skills of the reader/viewer/listener ... but that is another issue.

SPQR

Have you watched Professor Nurse’s documentary? Your comment, like that of AGIR, suggests you haven’t. If you had, you would have realised that Nurse said exactly what you gave AGIR credit for. Viz: science is being manipulated by politics (and vested interested). For example; deny and delay action on addressing climate change due to the influence of human activity.

I agree with your 3 points.

Oh, I’m no expert on haiku, but I believe the second line has 7 syllables ... samurai might help out.

PS for AGIR: have you watched the whole of the documentary yet?

Bugsy

It starts to stink when WXYZ thinks they know better than people at the coal face.

Sure, there is nothing wrong with questioning experts. There is something wrong when a sparky says an atmospheric physicist (for example) doesn’t have a clue what they're talking about because said sparky read about it on the internet.