A recent Nieman Lab piece looks back at a moment four decades ago when two popular science magazines shut down in the same year, out of roughly 17 in circulation. The episode was described at the time as a "science crash," and the author uses it to ask whether today's science journalism is heading toward a similar fate.
The analysis notes that one contemporary observer rejected the idea that the market was simply shaking out weaker titles, arguing instead that the magazines had fallen apart. The general manager of one of the failed publications pointed to a perception problem, though the excerpt cuts off before explaining exactly what that perception was.
The piece draws a parallel to current concerns about the sustainability of science journalism, but the source does not offer a direct comparison or conclusion. It suggests the historical episode may hold lessons for today, but the specifics of those lessons are not fully spelled out in the excerpt.