Of course not. But legacy media don’t have to think hard if they can just treat science stories that way:
In asserting themselves as people of rationality and objective facts (as opposed to people of “blind” faith), secular progressives intend to seal away their ideological opponents. That strategy arguably peaked with the so-called New Atheism movement, which now feels every bit as distant and irrelevant as the mid-20th-century fundamentalism it so often mimicked. Once a darling of the anti-Bush Left, Sam Harris now finds himself a lead character in the “intellectual dark web,” a vaguely libertarian, right-leaning coalition of free-speech advocates and critics of political correctness. It turns out that when you make a lot of money from telling people that Christianity is a plague on civilization, they might come to agree with you and then reach for as strong an anti-Christian repellant as they can find (namely, authoritarianism).
Atheists since Hume have insisted that society does not need transcendence in order to be moral and rational. An evidence-based, materialist account of the universe should be perfectly sufficient for reasonable people. But what shall we infer from the fact that university campuses, the intellectual environments most shaped by scientism, are also the ones producing the most-zealous crusaders for social justice, including causes that put them at clear odds with norms of scientific inquiry?
Samuel James, “There Is No ‘Party of Science’” at National Review
Now that James mentions it, the war on math and the war on science both got started at universities and the Sokal hoaxes are perpetrated on academic journals, not popular media outlets.
It’s a good question whether, today, being the “party of science” is even likely to be a selling point.
See also: Which side will atheists choose in the war on science? They need to re-evaluate their alliance with progressivism, which is doing science no favours.