> The editor-in-charge, and indeed every human being, is always biased

> You don't want an unbiased editor-in-charge, they're really just a person whose biases you don't recognize.

These 2 truths are hard for some to digest, and they also diffuse the next step they want to implement: thumbing the scales to "Fix the political bias in science" by installing 'neutral' (to them) individuals to swing science rightwards.

Of course, it's not really about the science itself, it's about using science as a new front in the culture wars.

> it's about using science as a new front in the culture wars.

Indeed. The sad thing is I suspect a large number of those contributing to the 'culture war' biases often do so unknowingly (which doesn't make it any less wrong).

Mainstream science reporting is somewhat different in that poor reporting typically falls into two groups: culture war adjacent topics and "everything else." The problems on the culture war side are pretty well-understood but the "everything else" side, while less 'bad' on a per instance basis, still has a big impact because it's so pervasive. I include in this the near-universal tendency of mainstream media to either bury, under-report or ignore nuance, error bars and virtually all other kinds of uncertainty in science reporting. I'm sure the reporters and their editors feel all that uncertainty makes the story less exciting (and less newsworthy) while explaining nuance makes it 'boring'. Unfortunately, not including those things often makes the story misleading.