“I did the same with Wired, Popular Science, and Popular Mechanics. They relentlessly pimped Gore-Bull warming, regardless of its relevance to the subject of any particular article.”
Me too especially with SciAm. They even made their politics blatant in “oh sooo subtle ways”. There was one article during the Bush/Kerry election that supposedly was comparing their environmental bona fides. Every single time Kerry was refered to, he was refered to “Senator Kerry”, every time Bush was refered to it was simply “Bush” with no “President”
I also have learned to turn off all nature shows before the last 10 minutes. No matter how mind blowingly awesome the show, the last 10 minutes are always dedicated to explaining how everything you just saw is just moments away from being rendered smoldering charcoal because of global warming
The mags mentioned have turned into rags with articles generated to support Political Agendas. BYE!
Go to your Barnes & Noble’s mag racks and guess how many of these won’t be around in 5 years. BYE!
After coming across the funding pitch several times in Archaeology, I noticed that the tone became demanding & condescending. One particular article bemoaned the lack of funds for field work that was so import.
If it's so darn important, why don't 'they' work for free? Spend vacation on a dig instead of spending my money.
Or not so subtle.
I quit Scientific American back in the 1990’s when they ran an article supporting the UN Small Arms Treaty. .
That was it and I haven’t looked back. I first started reading that magazine in junior high school and was in love with the magazine. But that article was about as scientific as astrology.
That's what happening to so many scientific articles I read lately. Even the non-believers do it now or they don't get grants, I'm told.