In answer to the statements found in the New Scientist article linked above:

"In September 2006, New Scientist was criticised by science fiction writer Greg Egan, who wrote that 'a sensationalist bent and a lack of basic knowledge by its writers' was making the magazine's coverage sufficiently unreliable 'to constitute a real threat to the public understanding of science'. In particular, Egan found himself 'gobsmacked by the level of scientific illiteracy' in the magazine's coverage of Roger Shawyer's 'electromagnetic drive', where New Scientist allowed the publication of 'meaningless double-talk' designed to bypass a fatal objection to Shawyer's proposed space drive, namely that it violates the conservation of momentum. Egan urged others to write to New Scientist and pressure the magazine to raise its standards, instead of 'squandering the opportunity that the magazine's circulation and prestige provides'.

The New Scientist editor replied defending the article, saying that it is 'an ideas magazine—that means writing about hypotheses as well as theories'."

{note: real science does not sell enough magazine copies to make publishers rich}