[Boxen]

*Facepalm*

You just don't get it, do you? If you've read scientific as you say you have, you'd understand that the actual journal article is much, much more chock full of information than any news article. Again, press releases are simplified and information and evidence is omitted. Ergo, criticism of a press release or news article instead of the actual published journal article is criticism of a strawman, as such simplifications and omissions weaken the argument.

Certainly, errors in the scientific process may be unknowingly revealed in a news article. However, how can one be certain that the errors are not the result of some overzealous technical writer who didn't fully understand the material without first reviewing the actual journal article?

[GodGunsGuts]

Nothing you have said changes the fact that the battle is fought on MANY levels. If a popular science rag got the import of the original research wrong, that is their problem. If someone writes an article about Marxian economics based on some stupid socialist book that nobody has ever heard of, that should not prevent economists from AEI, Heritage, Hoover, Discovery, or the Mises institute from pointing out the fallacies contained therein. If the original article contains errors, said responses will serve to highlight them, and if need be, the original socialist author can come out of the woodwork and correct the mistakes of the lesser socialist. Same thing applies in the popular science press IMHO.