Science portrays this guy as a powerful tyrant surrounded by powerless victims. The purpose is clear: blacklist him and make sure he never works again. Rather than examining what is actually known with any nuance, Science has turned a murky matter into a public smear campaign. The article casts this guy as having nearly unlimited control over the supposedly powerless people around him. But that power is fictional. Compared with the administrators he is up against, he is a peon. He cannot defend himself by saying anything about the accusations without exposure to further allegations of retaliation. The supposedly powerless can speak anonymously to Science while the supposed tyrant is effectively silenced. The manipulation is obvious in how the article is constructed. It includes a token favorable female voice describing him positively, but in language so generic and nondescript that it creates the some semblance of objectivity without challenging the intended narrative. Meanwhile, the accusations and insinuations receive the vivid, emotionally charged treatment needed to make him appear as menacing as possible. The truth is completely unclear. The investigation occurred behind closed doors, and only one side is presented with any force. What really happened remains unknown. The article does not provide enough reliable information to establish the truth because establishing the truth is not the purpose. It invokes unnamed people supposedly afraid of repercussions, yet presents no allegation that this guy did anything to hurt anyone’s career. Insinuations of fear substitute for evidence, reinforcing a narrative propped up by an opaque institutional finding and then used to campaign for his permanent blacklisting. There are already countless checks and balances designed to prevent retaliation, including specific policies and laws. Even beyond the official rules, the general climate in academia is such that saying anything negative about anyone can itself carry serious repercussions. The result has little to do with establishing the truth and far more to do with generating attention while legitimizing and effectively giving more authority to powerful administrators who can destroy careers through opaque, one-sided investigations. Science has become addicted to attention, outrage, and scare tactics.