One thing I learned a looooong time ago is that they’re all biased. Other countries have their leftist newspapers, rightist papers, anarchist papers, etc., and they make their biases known. So you know where they’re coming from, and just like setting the white-balance on a camera, you can filter their stories accordingly and get to the truth.
It’s only here in the USofA that all our “news” sources claim to be unbiased.
As far as the ET column, it’s easy to check. Find the listed articles in Science, Nature, the NEJM, etc., and see if the articles actually exist, or if the author just made it up.
I get the feeling those articles actually do exist. And if so, yeah, what’s it to “science” rags to go politicising things? So in that sense, the author’s spot-on, and makes the point beautifully.
Way back when I was into shortwave, I’d catch The Beeb and listen to their news reports. They just presented the facts, dryly, that it’s as if they were reading the weather report or stock results. No commentary, no tsk-tsking, nothing like that. I’d almost nod off, but then it became kinda refreshing. And I had no idea why.
And when I tuned into the local “my 9” news, and the talking heads would “editorialise” things and make faces and roll their eyes, etc., that’s when I saw the difference. They were quite openly putting their spin on the stories, and I realised I didn’t want that. I just wanted the news, not their opinions.
So if “science” journals turn political, how can I trust them or what they’re reporting?