Scientific American's departing editor and the politicization of science

Every piece called out here is clearly labeled "opinion" - did they even read the normal news and analysis sections? Countless newspapers and outlets and actual scientific journals have opinion/editorial sections that are generally very well firewalled from the factual content. You could collect the worst hot takes from a few years of nearly any site with a dedicated opinion page and pretend that it has gone downhill. But that this the whole point of having a separate opinion section — so opinions have a place to go, and are not slipped into factual reporting. And many opinion pieces are submitted by others or solicited as a way to show a view that the newsroom doesn't or can't espouse.

Whether the EIC of SciAm overstepped with her own editorializing is probably not something we as outsiders can really say, given the complexities of running a newsroom. I would caution people against taking this superficial judgment too seriously.

Why do opinions need a place to go? Why can't we just demonize professionals who lack the ability to report factual content without mixing in their opinions as unfit to be writing?

When I was in my 20s, I believed you.

Now that I'm in my 30s, I think we need a nanny police state making sure everyone is rational.

Her "parting rant" didn't appear in SciAm, a point even the article makes clear, but which you obscure here.

It’s probative of state of mind.

It would have been if you'd described it as such, rather than misleading about it (deliberately or not).