New Scientist now in Daily Mail stable

[grumzed]

Yes, I agree. New Scientist is not for a specialist in a specific subject but is very good for general science topics and does a good job at presenting up-to-date science information for anyone to read. "Nature" is good for that but unless you are diectly working in a particular esoteric field, it is not very readable :-). I hope it does not become politicised.

[johnofgwent]

Well, New Scientist seemed to be set at about 'A' level when I was an undergrad molecular biology wannabe, I haven't read one for a while.


I hope it doesn't get dumbed down. There is a difference between making science understandable in plain English, and printing it in inch high letters using monosyllables suited for the "delta mirror'

[patman post]

Here's another science related story, if there's anybody out there.................
My favourite science read The New Scientist has been sold to Daily Mail owner DMGT for £70m. The weekly science magazine and website was owned by a consortium of individual investors.

I'm not a fan of the Daily Mail, and I hope the newspapers political and editorial positions are not going to impact New Scientist's independent coverage of scientific events and discoveries, nor dumb it down to Metro popular reporting. For me, as an interested member of the public, New Scientist stretches my scientific understanding to the point I believe I really learn something.

New Scientist has 40 journalists and makes 75% of its revenue from subscriptions. Editor Emily Wilson told Press Gazette: "The two biggest stories in the world right now are climate change and Covid-19...........So there genuinely has never been a better time to sign up for science mag." 

The New Scientist sells an average of 84,215 print editions per week and 50,111 digital editions (134,326 in total worldwide). About half of its readers are in the UK...
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/new-scientist-sold/