All fair points. I don’t mean to absolve academic science at all, there is a credibility problem, completely independent of reporting. I’m mostly saying that wh

All fair points. I don’t mean to absolve academic science at all, there is a credibility problem, completely independent of reporting. I’m mostly saying that when it comes to reporting and blame for bad reporting, this is an issue of degree, and science reporting mucks things up far, far more often than scientists do, enough so that looking for blame outside of reporting seems pointless. Bad reporting and bad science are two separate problems, and the article we are commenting on says it’s about about bad reporting. I’m not very familiar with exaggerated claims in Nature, can you provide some examples? My experience with science reporting is almost always one of looking up the primary source and finding far more nuanced claims than were reported.