The article just reminds me that I hate modern journalism and try to not read any news articles.
Hyperbolic attention grabbing headline followed by appeal to authority, appeal to authority, appeal to authority, counter opinion appeal to authority that the previous appeal to authority might all be wrong.
So wide reaching and all over the place, the reader and can pick from the menu on what point they want to use as confirmation of what they already believe to be true. Then the article can be cited in a type of scientistic, mostly wrong, gossip.
IMO a complete waste of time.
I see the same thing with YouTube videos. I catch myself watching and afterwards being like "that was a load of wasted time"
> IMO a complete waste of time.
That's the new New Scientist entire. The mag is now pap for non-scientists.
Conflating New Scientist with all modern journalism is a category error. New Scientist has been a zombie mag for going on two decades at this point. As with many magazines, the internet killed it.
You shouldn't conflate a pop science magazine with all of modern journalism. Try a high quality outlet like The Economist. "I try not to read any news articles" screams anti-intellectualism.