The Nation squandered an opportunity to put forward an intelligent critique of the worrying lack of science journalism in American media. Instead of intellectualizing the issue, the authors took the one-dimensional view that it's all the mainstream media's fault we don't get informative news about science. To any fair minded observer, that's only part of the problem. Indeed, newspaper executives haven't treated their science sections with the "seriousness they deserve," even before the days of free web news. As Carl Sagan said in the "Cosmos" series (one of my favorites) that the authors cite a few times, every newspaper carries a daily astrology section, but you're hard pressed to find one that runs even a weekly column on astronomy. That was in 1980. Today, science journalism is measurably worse-off, and of course it's typical liberal indie media form to blame the big guys. Did it cross the authors' minds that perhaps scientists themselves share responsibility by failing to effectively communicate their work to the public? Sagan and others in the science-journalism community (including Timothy Ferris and Bill Nye) have suggested as much, warning against scientific elitism. And what about the public? Can people not think for themselves, seek out the information they want to read on their own? Don't get me wrong: you will find few proponents of science and science journalism as enthusiastic as me -- but let's act like scientists when we examine this issue and leave our dogma at the door.