For a while she was offering an honest look at a field going nowhere, and suggestions as to how they might better spend time and money.
Now I think she's just profiting from her new popularity by doing a not so good science/tech show.
And if not career scientists, who exactly do you think should be making a living... Doing research?
Undergrads? The admins? The timecube guy? Nobody?
There's a lot of problems with science as it's done today, but that snipe is a banal, tribalistic take that is all-too-common.
For me, a "career scientist" is someone that publishes papers solely to hold a position at an org / institute / uni / etc (yes, yes, everyone needs food on the table... not the point here. One can still have integrity). The career scientist couldn't care less about being right, only about how many citations he's gonna get and whether anyone's going to discover any flaws in his paper.
That doesn't change the fact that the most common non-monetary goal of academics is in fact pretty well aligned with behaviors such as: publishing very frequently/flag planting, farming citations on old publications, exaggerating work in presentations and media press releases, etc. Not all of these behaviors are inherently bad but they easily can be and too often are taken to an extreme.
Said goal is of course intellectual credit, or from a more cynical lense pure ego stroking. And it is indeed a rampant non-monetary incentive in academia.
Anyway, I don't see the problem with someone who has recently pursued a PhD or beyond in academic science ripping on "career scientists". This is the sort of (mostly) informed criticism that science should welcome. Though some are overly negative, they usually still have relevant insights into problems in their field, and it is silly to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
That is markedly different from someone that frequently criticizes scientists from the outside while lacking any actual insight into the relevant technical complications, especially if that person is casting a wide net in what they criticize.
The goal of a lot of modern scientific criticism is to further the conversation amongst those presently in the field, and help those adjacent to the field make more informed decisions - including prospective/very early career trainees, potential interdisciplinary collaborators, and anyone that has a role in directing possibly relevant funding opportunities. If criticisms get co-opted by other individuals for irrelevant goals that is unfortunate but it does not make the criticism invalid.
It's also somewhat difficult in the social media age to avoid commentary that gains steam in the scientific community from reaching broader public exposure, which indeed opens it to misinterpretation. But the alternative of walled off information a la the old school journal publication system is obviously problematic for other reasons.
That is a long winded way of saying that I think some amount of harsh publicly viewable criticism is sorely needed by a number of scientific fields right now, including my own (very much not physics). The fact that criticisms which from what I can gather where initially internally directed eventually gained such external exposure tells me that the message resonated with many scientists, even if just earlier career ones. Whether this person has started to profiteer on their cynicism is tangential to the validity of the original core message IMO.
Someone hasn't heard of ticket quotas before have they? Or the pharmaceutical companies that were effectively buying off doctors for years by expensive trips based on their ability to prescribe the drugs they were selling. We've had to add regulations to these above two 'fields' to prevent exactly this from happening, and in many places it still does.
What you are describing is philosophically, definitively, not science. The career scientist is a scientist who is committed to the scientific method. The career crank is committed to selling the notion that they have all the answers. That could be a citation chaser or a youtube contrarian.
yeah, she should've known better than to attack a protected class
A telltale sign of a crank is attacking career scientists, which is her brand. What insight is she offering? Destroying is easy, creating is hard. Lies spread faster than truth. In general she is a force of confusion rather than enlightenment. It's too bad because she seems capable, if only she'd follow through rather than chase headlines.