How did a formerly respectable, once excellent publication focusing on high quality popularization of cutting edge scientific research turn into a cut rate political rag?
Forget about the masthead. Let's look at the people hiding behind it.
First up: the editor in chief, Laura Helmuth.
Helmuth is actually a scientist (PhD cognitive neuroscience), although she prefers to be known as a Woman In Science. From her bio, "She speaks frequently on ... ways to use social media effectively and fight misinformation."
Next up, the managing editor Jeanna Bryer.
Bryer has an English BA, an MSc in biogeochemistry, and a graduate degree in journalism. Not really a scientist, though apparently she did some wetland conservation work.
"She is a firm believer that science is for everyone". Does 'everyone' include Trump voters? Rhetorical.
Yikes, that haircut though. Just screams 'bitter middle aged shrew with penis envy'.
Next up, senior news reporter Meghan Bartels. From her bio she doesn't seem to have any actual scientific training - she's worked exclusively as a "science reporter" and has master's in journalism.
This is a face that despises ethics in gaming journalism.
Next we have Sunya Bhutta, the "Chief Audience Engagement Editor", which sounds like she runs social media or something, and is in fact precisely that. Once again she has absolutely no scientific training - she's an English BA, which appears to be her highest qualification.
WYB?
The first male we find is Lee Billings, senior editor for space/physics. Billings doesn't appear to be a scientist either (journalism degree), but the American Institute of Physics gave him an award for a book he wrote about astrobiology, so there's that.
This face is screaming to be soyjaked.
The senior graphics editor is another middle aged woman, Jen Christiansen. The problem glasses and chainsaw haircut immediately inform you that she has Strong Opinions on politics, and that she will take every opportunity to inform you about those opinions, despite it being wholly unnecessary as a glance at her is sufficient to determine what those opinions are.
Once again, no actual scientific training. Her job is to make the graphs look pretty.
Jeffery DelViscio is the Chief Multimedia Editor. He's a former NYT reporter, but does actually have some scientific experience, having worked on an oceanographic research vessel.
As an aside, it really jumps out that what small amount of scientific training the editors have seems to be top-heavy with climatology-adjacent fields. I wonder why that might be.
Arminda Downey-Mavromatis is the Associate Engagement Editor, i.e. the social media intern. There's an even chance she wrote the tweet the OP QT'd. Hi, Arminda!
To her credit, she has a BA (not a BSc?) in biochemistry, but seems to have worked exclusively in publishing.
This smarmy-looking character, straight out of central casting for "middle management", is Mark Fischetti, Senior Editor, Sustainability. "Sustainability" is apparently a scientific field now.
He does, however, have a physics degree - the first hard scientist in the pressroom - and has a pretty impressive publication record, having co-authored a book with Tim Berners-Lee.
That he isn't the editor in chief is remarkable, until you consider the politics, which he certainly supports. Though I can't help but wonder how he feels about not being editor in chief because of his chromosal disability (XY, yuck).
There are dozens more in the pressroom to get through, but the point has already been made.
Scientific American isn't Scientific American. It's a skinsuit being worn by a cabal of overpromoted head girls and their housebroken soyboys, for whom science is only interesting insofar as it can be used to bolster propaganda imperatives for their side's political goals - "sustainability", "equity", and so on. If those goals require "science" to be redefined as "supporting a cackling social-climbing prostitute with the verbal IQ of a parakeet", then that's what The Science means.
Science journalism is desperately in need of a Gamergate.
There are 28 individuals listed in the SciAm pressroom. Of these, 17 are women, 10 are men, and 1 is a "they".
Ctl-F 'physics' yields 3 with physics degrees, of whom 1 has a PhD.
Several hundred years ago, a small force of Spaniards landed on the shore of a land heretofore wholly unknown to European man. What followed has been characterized as the mass enslavement of an entire people, the systematic extermination of a culture, and as a genocide.
It was all of those things.
But try to see it from their perspective.
These were not sophisticated men. They were second and third sons, with no inheritance to secure their futures, who had struck out on their own to chance their fortunes in the New World as soldiers and adventurers. They hailed from a military culture, which had within living memory concluded a reconquest of their ancestral peninsula that had taken seven centuries to complete. They were hard men from a hard people.
In the world they came from, the divisions were between the three branches of the Abrahamic faiths. Whether Christian, Jewish, or Mohammedan, all agreed on the existence of a supreme deity that had fashioned the world for His ends and infused it with His presence, moulded Man in His image and breathed into him His essence.
They inhabited a world ordered according to a divine plan, following rules that could be grasped by human reason.
Further, the supreme being that gave shape to the world was benevolent – a stern father, but a father concerned with the well-being of His children, and while He may on occasion have reasons to inflict chastisements great and small on individuals and nations, it was only ever with the intention of leading them towards His light, that they might find glory in His grace.
If you're curious, the Trump trial self-immolationist's manifesto is available on SS.
Was he a leftist with TDR?
Outraged MAGA?
Nope.
He's a schizo who thinks The Simpsons was a mind control plot to prepare the world for global fascism via crypto ponzi.
These things are happening more and more. Starting to wonder if burning oneself alive to draw attention to one's cause is the new mass shooting.
People are being driven off the edge by the confluence of a decaying social order and ontological fracture.
As things fall apart this is only going to happen more. Desperate people with nothing to live for, no hope in their lives, perceiving no way out of a dark world they can no longer make sense of, atomized and alone, alienated by bespoke worldviews built by algorithms...