New link:
http://swns.com/new-evidence-suggests-dinosaurs-wiped-out-by-big-freeze-221417.html
Warm-blooded?!
I suppose this is one of the many examples where transparency in science journalism lets us down. I'm torn between two opinions here:
1) Where media output purports to be accurate scientific truth, it needs to be as transparent as possible so as to inform the public correctly.
BUT
2) If the content isn't interesting and doesn't have a "hook" then it won't be published or read at all.
I think it's important to get science into the media, but there seems to be a problem with it being done well. Anybody have any solutions?
