Nieman has a fair-minded article on the decline of science journalism. The author recognizes that science journalism isn’t unique; it’s failing on the same schedule as general journalism. He misses the reason as always.
He also categorizes science magazines oddly. He says Scientific American, Popular Science and National Geographic are the three biggest. SciAm has always claimed be a science mag. PopSci was initially a competitor to SciAm, but it turned into a tech mag long ago. When I read PopSci in the 50s and 60s, it covered autos, electronics, jet engines, etc, NOT the latest research. NatGeo was Playboy for those of us who didn’t want to be seen buying Playboy.
He misses the Gernsback line of mixed scifi and science. I enjoyed Analog Scifi, which had plenty of real science and math along with fiction. Looking it up, it’s still published online and in print! Gernsback carried forward the old Entertainment mode from the era of Magic Lanterns. The best way to communicate and encourage science OR ANY FUCKING THING is with sugar and spice, not contempt and bullying and snobbery.
In those days Science Digest was a short-form newsletter carrying the latest research. SciAm had the latest research plus long philosophical ramblings. After 1970 SciAm became a screechy overmodulated loudspeaker for DNC talking points, like all other magazines and newspapers.
[Come to think of it, I’ll bet NatGeo also understood the value of entertainment. They certainly catered to it.]
Polistra's Mill 