> guess that the approach used in Nature, which values ideas for themselves, would be more successful with the general public; it's just not used. I sadly hav

> guess that the approach used in Nature, which values ideas for themselves, would be more successful with the general public; it's just not used. I sadly have to disagree. As much as I'd rather not. After university I worked as a junior editor for an online site with > 10 million uniques per month. Shortly after joining I was handed over the "science" section (double, triple, quadruple the quotes). I tried to make it more about current scientific ideas, the big findings of the past and less about 'Hitler living on the dark side of the moon', 'Aliens visiting earth', 'This dietary idea will make you loose weight fast' and all the other bullshit one reads in tabloid. No clicks. Advertising revenue down the drain. The audience had no interest in scientific ideas and great findings. They wanted entertainment. Maybe I just wasn't able to deliver modern scientific research with enough entertainment value. At least not compared to described topics above. I know. This is just anecdata from a random guy on the internet. YMMV.