- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Hear, hear! I couldn't agree more. As the letters on this and on the disgraceful puff piece on "id" proponent Thompson demonstrate, a decent chunk of Salon's most passionate readers love and understand science with enough sophistication to recognize hoo-hah when they read it.
Yes to a science editor. But I'd respectfully disagree about such a person exhibiting "basic understanding" of science. What's wrong with someone who really gets science? Who can seek out and present stuff to Salon readers that's hard to find elsewhere?
The only decent science reporting in the mainstream, and they are just barely large enough to be called mainstream, is in The Economist (peace, friends, it's not their politics, it's their science reporting that's stellar). Salon would do everyone a huge favor if they could find someone of genuine talent and knowledge to report on the amazing science being done today in an original and sensible manner.
