But surely the RSS feed includes science reporting from newspaper articles that does not report new research or offer form conclusions? IN fact, good science reporting, to me, requires reporting when there is conflicting research.

I say this is good reporting because all the articles I have read on this blog (which I admit I only read once in a while, but still have read several articles) only report on primary research originally reported in peer reviewed journals and often quote the authors of that research for how they would sum it up, instead of simply giving the reporter's opinion on what they read. Also they seem to be very good at reporting both sides of an issue when there is research to support both sides. This blog is commercial, but it is edited, like the New York Times or any other paper, and the parent company appears to be targeting people with some education and scientific literacy.

Not all blogs are created equal and not all blogs are just some person about whom you know little or nothing spouting their opinion. One can be a critical consumer of information in the blogosphere as elsewhere. None of this is to say I think the RSS feed needs to include stuff from blogs, even good ones like this.

Nelie