NS journalists are quite manipulative as a matter of fact. This being said it is good to spark controversies (such as with Shamwyer's emdrive). I think it is healthy that there is opposition between so-called "crackpots" and so-called "established scientists". <br />Of course pseudo-science shall be exposed and ultimately defeated. But also, there is a bothersome trend in the scientific community to ignore facts that do not fit known mechanisms or theories. <br />I am appalled when I see scientists who have this (very unscientific) behaviour. When presented with such "abnormal" 'facts", they can (and should) of course be skeptical and attack the factuality of the "fact" or "observation". E.g. were data manipulated, or unduly processed, or not statistically significant, or with observational bias, ...? A "fact" is not sacrosanct. And they will prove ultimately right in most cases. But to lambast and ignore people presenting "facts" because it does not fit theories is irrelevant. If they were engineers ignoring an anomaly report because "it cannot be", they would be fired immediately.<br /><br />So it is good that some balance is kept. <br /><br />Of course, by honesty, they should always associate these unorthodox "facts" with caution and skeptical reactions from the Establishment. What they - shamefully- do not do.<br />