Rapport fails science journalism. Again.

So, if you’re a major Sunday newspaper read by hundreds of thousands, and you happen to stick your entire leg in your mouth by running a glowing report about the discovery of perpetual motion, what do you do next week? Admit your monumental stupidity and humbly beg forgiveness? Get a real scientist to explain why perpetual motion is like carrying water in a sieve? Use the opportunity to educate thousands about one of the most fundamental laws of nature? Let the journalist write “I will always at least Google unbelievable-sounding science before writing an article about it” a thousand times?

No. You publish two rather short skeptical letters from readers, and make no further reference to the matter. Two (well written) letters, with no official backing by Rapport or mention of scientific credentials. Those two letters will simply be seen by the woo brigade as another example of closed-minded skeptics who reject a possibly great invention, suppressing the little guy who can change the world. Two letters that will do very little or nothing to discourage naïve investors or poor Mr De Beer from chasing this pipe dream any further.

Shame on you, Rapport. Shame.

BTW, if anyone would like to share this sentiment with the appropriate editor at Rapport, send him a little mail (like I have) by clicking here.