I found passages like the one I just quoted to be puzzling on many levels.
Science blogs pretty much came into existence as a way for scientists themselves to critique bad coverage in traditional media. And, ten years later, that remains a powerful tradition.
The paper presents a romantic, uncritical view of the press. Speaking as a journalist, I can say this is a view we can ill-afford.
What's more, neuroscience blog posts are very often deep, nuanced, and more accurate than "churnalism" driven by glib press releases.
If neuroscientists are indeed avoiding blogs for this reason (no data provided in the paper that this is true), then they are sadly misguided.