Two possibilities?

Big Science, especially the public-facing side in magazines or TV, has been totally corrupt for at least 40 years. Journalism’s public side is permanently corrupt. No history of objectivity at all, except for the years when the Fairness Doctrine ruthlessly censored broadcasters into objectivity.

BUT: Out of the public eye, and away from the magazines and influencers, there are plenty of uncorrupted researchers working in industry and even in academia. For instance, neuroscience shows no signs of Green or DNC bias. Just the facts. (There are undoubtedly other honest areas, but I’m most familiar with current neuroscience work so I can vouch for it.)

If there are any honest journalists, I sure as hell haven’t noticed them. Greenwald tries harder than anyone else, but his biases still show in the stories he chooses to ignore.

What’s the difference? Two possibilities, and I don’t know if either is valid.

(1) Real science is unquenchably international. Nearly every paper published in USA has a mix of Chinese or Russian or Islamic or Indian coauthors. If the American coauthor is crazed by Gaia or Woke, the Chinese coauthor doesn’t give a fuck. No cultural influence can MONOPOLIZE the discussion.

Journalism is strictly national. There are no Chinese or Indian coauthors to balance out the all-American tyranny. A few of the more “independent” types come from India, but they’re thoroughly Americanized.

(2) Science has both public and non-public sides. Most researchers toil in obscurity, working for oil companies or chemical companies or universities. Journalism is all public by automatic definition, so every participant is fervently attempting to convert the viewers and readers into Gaian or DNC cultists.

= = = = =

Later thought on the international question. The American coauthor might be naturally unbiased, but he knows the granting agency that funds his lab wants to see Gaia and Diversity in every paper. Most other countries support research on an annual basis, not by competitive bidding for political favors. Their grantors only want to see valid work and solved problems.