Papers are interesting, but usually much less accessible. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of scientific reporting. However, many publishers have

Papers are interesting, but usually much less accessible. There is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of scientific reporting. However, many publishers have historically gone overboard with sensationalism, which spurred a lot of knee-jerk reactionary sentiment. In this case, I don't think it is really warranted. I thought the article was about as straight forward as one could expect for an introduction of this length, and avoided sensationalism. The only hazard mentioned is that to satellites, which is mentioned as a concern on area of research in the original article (which they actually linked for once!).