Reflections on the scientific community’s relationship with the popular press

2 responses to “Reflections on the scientific community’s relationship with the popular press”

1. Dr. Sturm

   October 5, 2026

   There are a lot of important issues tucked into this article, but I will say that this concept of the “popular press” is used pretty loosely here. The outlandish pyramids story, as far as I could tell, always stayed on the fringes and was only picked up by less-than-reputable, conspiracy-minded outlets. I never saw this story break into the true mainstream outlets (ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, etc.) that have actual editorial standards (You mention a confusion between the New York Times and the New York Post…those are very different media outlets, and I can almost guarantee you were talking with the Post). It doesn’t negate these other important issues: the peer review process, the general scientific illiteracy of our society, and the bad actors who are always pushing their own agendas…all important topics we should be aware of. But we should be careful to paint the “popular press” with too broad a brush, lest it seem that we’re pushing our own political agendas.

   Reply
   1. Larry Conyers

      October 6, 2026

      Thank you Dr. Sturm. Just to refresh my memory I went back to all the communication I had with people either in the “mainstream” or “popular” Press. And found many podcasters also, many of who are flakes. But I also talked to these “mainstream” people after they contacted me for comment on the peer review publication and the ways that information had morphed into all that I was asked to comment on:
      Daily Mail
      BBC
      Sky News
      NY Post
      Washington Times
      NY Times Science
      NY Magazine
      Scientific American

      How many of these “mainstream” folks ran a story on this, I am not sure, as I didn’t care to follow up. Perhaps some of them talked to me and then just dumped the hole story as too squirrely? I am not sure of that either. But at this point, who did and didn’t talk to me is beside the point. My point I hope still stands that whatever press it might be is using “peer review” as a stamp of approval, and then they may or may not run with the story no matter how divorced from reality it may be. The wacky people just run with whatever they want, if it is entertaining. Perhaps others are more cautious. I really don’t care to differentiate the popular from the mainstream press at this point, as that is not where I was going with this rant of mine!

      Reply