In scientific journalism, I think it’s important to be as objective as possible when relaying facts. It’s okay for authors to include their own opinions at times, but it should be clearly separate from what is scientifically proven and  factual. To my surprise, I felt many popular media authors skewed information to convey a certain feeling or opinion. Whether it was overly positive/hopeful language, exaggeration of statements, or leaving details out altogether, it was clear when comparing the journal and the popular media reports that the author was conveying their own version of the facts. Even if the changes were subtle, the impact on the article as a whole was significant. Therefore, I think scientific journalists can improve on being more objective. In addition to being objective, I think a good reproduction of scientific research should also include more angles and alternative views. It shows the author has done thorough research on the topic and also helps cancel out some possibility of bias. In order to keep readers interested, I think it’s helpful to include relatable analogies and reference to modern day applications. Rather than spinning the facts to engage the reader, authors can retain their credibility, while also appealing to the audience by keeping content relevant. Whether that’s making reference to a popular movie or mentioning a famous celebrity, this could help lighten the load of all the scientific talk. One point I found interesting in the presentations was the fact that certain scientists had financial stake in the company they were reporting on. Personally, I did not know this while reading, but it definitely changes my perception of the report now. It brings some controversy to the credibility of the writers who perhaps may be biased.