Update
Evidently, I’m not the only one who shares this view of Scientific American. An article in City Journal entitled “Unscientific American” goes into great detail about this slip into the left wing “Matrix”:
For progressives, admitting that any problem—racism, pollution, poverty—has improved means surrendering the rhetorical high ground. “They are committed to the idea that there is no cumulative progress,” Shermer says, and they angrily resist efforts to track the true prevalence, or the “base rate,” of a problem.
…
over the past decade or so, the quality of science journalism—even at the top publications—has declined in a new and alarming way. Today’s journalistic failings don’t owe simply to lazy reporting or a weakness for sensationalism but to a sweeping and increasingly pervasive worldview.
…
Several prominent scientists took note of SciAm’s shift. “Scientific American is changing from a popular-science magazine into a social-justice-in-science magazine,” Jerry Coyne, a University of Chicago emeritus professor of ecology and evolution, wrote on his popular blog
March 18, 2024
As documented in various postings on this blog, approximately five years ago I started noticing that many sports and science-related web sites (formerly magazines) moved from factual reporting to political advocacy. In fact, I started removing many of the links on the left-side of my blog page as well as from my Feedly newsfeed. This included Deadspin, ESPN, Scientific American, and Popular Mechanics.
I discovered that most of the articles on these sites were not written by sports advocates or engineers, but were the work of individuals with backgrounds in journalism. It’s relatively safe to assume that the majority of people that go into journalism have a leftist slant. Thus, this has become the positioning of many formerly fact-based journals.