Tom Scott is a geek comedian who has been described as a "sometime internet funny man" by The Register has come to the rescue of science journalism with a list of warnings they can go ahead and stick on their articles.

J.L. Vernon echoes many of the points I made in Are Science Blogging Networks Dead? but also focuses on a distinct aspect, writing Just like the NBA, “Science” is a brand.  It's a message that may be lost on some, or they would self-police a little better and certainly ask their commenters for a little more maturity - but it may be that while science is a brand (Science 2.0, Discover, Nature, etc. certainly always want to make sure writers get benefit beyond traffic from being in respective publications) at Scienceblogs, bloggers are themselves the brand.

Colin Schultz, a video journalist in Ontario, has some tips for aspiring science journalists.   Science readership is going up each year but science journalism jobs are decreasing.  How so?   Some of it is that science literacy is increasing(1) so more and more people can read science directly from the sources, like here, but without editors or journalists pitching stories the breadth of coverage is not complete so independent writing did not harm journalism - the market is up regardless of reasons.  

Science 2.0, being about openness and outreach and participation,  can attract its share of kooks.  Depending on the whims of the community moderators around that day, goofy, speculative nonsense can even stay on the front page as a blog for a while.  It comes with the territory but people who spend money on cameras, lights and lawyers can usually be taken more seriously.

Not always, as PZ Myers found with Expelled filmmakers.  Sometimes the anti-science contingent has both money and an agenda.