I do understand the media's job is to sell media and that fad diets, regardless of their efficacy, sustainability or scientific underpinnings, can fairly be described as newsworthy - especially if wildly popular. I also understand that the public has a seemingly insatiable appetite for entertaining the promise of simple solutions to complex problems. But shouldn't there be a limit to the degree of bullshit a reporter will cover?
Sure, reputable reporters and news outlets generally produce balanced pieces explaining why the bullshit is in fact bullshit, but doesn't simply writing the piece, however balanced it may be, suggest there's a discussion to be had in the first place? That there are two sides to consider?
But if one side is just florid, stinking, hogwash wrapped up in the shiny tinsel of hope and tied with the red velvet bow of marketing, does it really deserve to be shot through the megaphone of a media discussion?
I don't know the answer, but I do know that the bullshit is apparently so irresistible it's bulletproof.