I have something against the magazine because it continually distorts the science behind the stories to such an extent that the person reading them is frequentl

I have something against the magazine because it continually distorts the science behind the stories to such an extent that the person reading them is frequently left with the wrong impression. Having noticed this several times, it makes sense (if you trust induction) to treat all such articles from the same magazine with similar suspicion. This article is no exception. You are of course correct when you say that many people enjoy reading it. I just expected most of the readers of HN to have studied science to a high-enough level to be aware that much of what is written in New Scientist is, not wrong, but perhaps immature.