Scientific American isn't a social media platform; by publishing these opinion pieces, they implicitly support them. Would you be ok if they published an opinion piece bashing evolution and defending creationism?

Major news orgs publish op-eds they disagree with all the time. They label them as opinion.

It's actually unfortunate if publications decide only to publish things they agree with because that fails to acknowledge they could be wrong.

Evolution and creationism are settled wars (as far as science is concerned) and wouldn't be interesting to readers. It would be interesting to read a serious assessment of, say, the Covid lab leak theory.

> by publishing these opinion pieces, they implicitly support them

This would seem to be true if they tend to run opinion pieces that are all from one "side". If they ran pieces that espouse conflicting viewpoints, it would not imply that they support all of the opinion pieces they publish.

From the look of it, they stick to one team. They wouldn't be taking this heat if they had a broader diversity of thought.

I expect them to publish op/ed pieces they believe their subscribers will find interesting. As long as they're clearer labeled as opinion, what's the problem? Op/ed pieces have been part of journalism pretty much forever.

> by publishing these opinion pieces, they implicitly support them.

Not at all. Especially if the articles are from guest writers and not the typical editors.

So?

Should it be impossible to have a rigorous scientific method for reporting and peer review in the news section, while advocating for certain actions or perspectives in the opinion page?

If someone sends me a Wall Street Journal news article that reports on facts, I can trust it, even if their opinion page is intellectually bankrupt.