Science journalism - dark times

At this point it's old hat to decry the problems facing traditional news media.  Still, it is abundantly clear in our late stage capitalist society that there has been a collective business decision over the last 20+ years that, like local newspapers and television news, real science journalism is not a money maker.   Just a few examples:  Seventeen years ago, CNN cut its entire science, technology and environment reporting team.  In 2022, Popular Science ceased publication.  In 2023, National Geographic laid off their staff writers.  Last week, the Wall Street Journal laid off their science and health reporters.  

I have it on good authority that there is now only one science reporter left at the WSJ.  One, at a time when science and technology are more critically important to our rapidly changing society than ever, and there is enormous tumult in the US and elsewhere about how science is or is not supported and is or is not factoring into policy decisions.  All of this is happening at a time when public trust in science is falling.  (Check out this from Science Friday.)  

To be sure, there are some great publications out there, like Quanta and Nautilus (both founded by nonprofits). There are outstanding public writers of science, like Philip Ball, Helen Czerski, Katie Mack, Ethan Siegel, and many others (apologies for the incompleteness of this list).  There are some excellent freelance journalists.  The internet also means that there are many opportunities for great engagement.  For example, the videos from 3blue1brown are uniformly outstanding.  However, there are no filters, and the temptation to be click-baity or sensationalistic is problematic.  

I have no solutions to offer, except that I encourage you to support good science journalism and reporting when you see it.  It's important.