In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

The reason most people think that dark matter is some sort of
non-baryonic (and non-neutrino) elementary particle is because there are
good arguments against other candidates, including Hawkins's. Even if
some people root for particle dark matter, you can't criticize their
experiments for looking for it any more than you can criticize Hawkins
for not looking for it.

Some interesting logic here, but I hope you can grasp the fact that I
am most certainly not criticizing anyone for doing any
experiments/observations.

The entire tone of the rest of your post indicates that you are.

I do criticize 40 years of insisting that
particle dark matter is the best candidate

40 years ago, it wasn't the leading candidate. By a process of
elimination, it is left standing while essentially all other candidates
have been ruled out.

and ignoring the writing on
the wall in hopes that the mythical particles are just around the next
corner.

Who ignores what? People have read Hawkins's papers, they have pointed
out errors, and Hawkins ignores such work. Even if he doesn't agree, he
should address criticism.

Hopes? Wishes? Dreams? People do experiments and report what they
see.

In today's New York Times there is an article about reports of
gamma-rays emitted from one dwarf galaxy and the possibility of a
breakthrough in the particle dark matter search. The hype is laid on
thick and the go-to band leader Neil Weiner leads the parade.

Please distinguish scientific discussion from media hype. By the way, I
recall some recent media hype about rogue planets. Please refrain from
cherry picking.

What do you think the chances are that the paper of M.R.S. Hawkins
would get proper coverage in the media?

I once invited Mike to give a talk in Hamburg, and he came and gave it.
I saw several newspaper clippings. He has also written a popular book.
Considering that I came across it by chance at a stall selling used
books at a folk festival in Oxfordshire, my guess is that a fair number
were published. His case has been heard. But anyway, why is MEDIA
coverage important at all? On the one hand, you criticize media hype.
On the other hand, you seem sad because Hawkins and you don't get
enough.

I'd say pretty darn low. Yet
his reanalysis of the microlensing results is at least as newsworthy
as the latest "hint" of wimps, if not considerably more.

Maybe science writers notice that he repeats the same argument and
ignores criticism and have better things to write about.

This is not solely the attitude/fault of the media, as Weiner's
comments amply demonstrate. The particle physics community is driving
it, and driving it hard.

Looking for things which are not ruled out is what experimentalists do.
No-one is "driving anything hard".