I loved this article by Liberman. The number one thing I think you can learn from his blog is the fact that no one should take science based writing for fact without putting a little bit of research into it. Obviously, Liberman proved that this particular writer for a well-known science magazine was completely twisting results from an experiment just to make a popular story. Instead of the public simply taking his word for fact, it is important to research the results he talks about in the article for yourself.
Liberman is able to prove this article wrong by real, reported data from the exact experiment the writer refers to. The results are even cited as to where they came from for anyone to look at. Clearly the results are the complete opposite of what the writer leads people to believe. Also, Liberman adds that the man that he got the data from is now cited as a source on the science magazines article. Further proving that whoever reads the science magazines article should and now can look at the true results of the experiment. Unlike the science magazines columnist, Liberman makes good use of citations and legitimate sources. The sources I think are very helpful to the reader and reassure him/her that what they are reading is true and proven.
The best and most effective way I think there would be to remedy the problem of false information in the media or resources seen by the public is for the editing that goes on within the sources to be concise and strict. Obviously, the writer for the science magazine had to submit his work to a supervisor for editing before the printing and publishing process. This supervisor did not do his/her job by checking the sources used by the writer or whether or not the information that will be presented to their readers is correct. The best way to prevent false information from being sold to the public is stricter processes of editing within the magazine, newspaper, ext companies before going to print. I believe it is their responsibility to ensure the material in their media is correct, and part of the blame for this misleading article should be on the writer's supervisor. Cracking down on this editing process and having certain standards of citation and proof available in an article would help the problem we see in this particular science article.