The only quibble I would have is in his description of the coverage of "breakthroughs." I don't attribute those to intellectually bankrupt science writers at newspapers. Most "breakthrough" pieces are press releases put out by the institutions. Thus, the coverage of "breakthroughs" is more due to lazy writers who aren't out getting stories, but letting stories come to them.
Newspaper science writers aren't out looking for new breakthroughs, for the most part.
