Science journalism used to not have that 'science' qualifier.  It was journalism, like any other kind, but about science.

Last decade, though, science journalism lost its way, as we have discussed many times before. Too many science journalists became cheerleaders for science or, worse, advocates for aspects of controversial science topics. They were no longest trusted guides for the public and, as a result, people stopped reading them and corporate media no longer had need for something no one read. Science 2.0 and other sites filled the void nicely.

Fareed Zakaria of CNN writes the Global Public Square column and expressed concern recently that America was losing ground in science because of research funding and education.  

The Agriculture Department is supposed to promote agriculture, including meat, but it seems someone in there once read a flawed metric that claims it takes a gallon of gas to produce a pound of beef and recommended USDA employees go meatless to save the world.

Is there any truth to it?  No, but maybe they are counting on another four years of anti-science, advocacy-based leadership and getting a head start. In their agency newsletter, they provided tips on how to reduce environmental impact while eating in the department cafeteria - they suggested not eating meat.