Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

There are many truths that can be discovered through the scientific method. Those truths are inherently political (see elsewhere on this discussion about the truthful obesity research funded by Coca-Cola that focused on exercise rather than sugar intake)

The notion that there is no objective truth, that everything is a social construct, is intellectual poison.

Fundamental truths exist in physics and mathematics and other fields, completely orthogonal to politics.

People may have opinions about it, but it is what it is.

Anyway, I’m not talking about science at all. I’m talking about Scientific American and the broader media.

They claim impartiality; they wear a facade of objectivity; they sell themselves as neutral arbiters. But in reality they are apparatchiks.

Joe Rogan is popular not because he claims to be above it all or to be objective, but because there’s no facade at all.

> Your assumption is that there exists an "apolitical truth" that science should aspire to. There isn't.

You can definitely try present different theories on a given topic, citing different papers that defend different viewpoints. You can have a bias for one interpretation, I will not fault you for that. But if you pretend like you favorite interpretation is the settled science and anyone that disagrees is an idiot, then I think you failed at your job as a science publication.