[caenorst]

This is not a proof. In logic, you can't say A and C => D is wrong just because B and C => D is wrong.

An example, "My uncle became blind because of diabetes", similar answer: "I don't buy it, my father is diabetic and never got blind". Doesn't work.

In other words, the reason why scientific journalism in non-university press could be bad for various different reason than university press.

[robonerd]

Well first off, this is an informal discussion. Secondly:

> It is ALL about click bait to drive digital advertising

(Emphasis my own.) Science reporting is still crap even when it isn't funded by advertising, so there's obviously more going on than the funding model making things shit. The BBC and CBC both have crappy science reporting too, as do university press departments. These counter-examples refute the claim which was stated too strongly (I do think advertising plays some role in it, but obviously not all.)