* "Bible tells us in an uncharacteristic fit of wisdom" made me laugh
out loud...but you may wanna cut it. I mean, we haven't done an analysis
of the Bible's wisdom, on a per page or per verse (yuk yuk) basis.
* "If we make a similar comparison between the journalism of the late
19th century and that of the early 21st.."
Do you mean <<20th>> century vs. 21st?
* "...the first thing one will notice is a steep decline in
thickness...". Hmm. this sounds akin to the discredited brain weight and
climate thesis. Well, thickness doesn't = good science writing. The real
issue here is 1) how much space, in general, is science getting in
mainstream pubs. (Because we are talking mostly mainstream pubs, yes?
Not sci pubs.) and 2) If the writing is any good, more or less accurate
than writing in the past. I'm not sure that case is being made
sufficiently here.
* Typos: emphasising ...."makes makes"
* My inclusion in the statement. I think...I think..you should remove
me. I mean, I'm on the communications side of things and my public
presence may make journalists a little itchy...even though I've been a
tech and sci journalist for a long time. At the moment, I'm at the NCSE
and while I can be a great source of help, article dev, and sources (fer
sure)...well, I think this would be best!