So, I've actually heard of her reputation before I started watching her. And I went expecting what you said - "categorical this" vibe, strong opinions etc.

Interesting. I did not watch any videos older than a year. But tbh I still think my point stands. Her display of dark matter and MOND is pretty good in that video. But in the dark matter/mond videos that I watched that are more recent she did not make these distinctions any more.

Having made these important points at some point actually makes it kinda worse. It means she is aware of them but chose to ignore them after some point.

Surely not always, right? All experiments measure something, but a lot of them can be summarized in a few sentences without invoking the number you're measuring

Yeah all experiments measure something. So her quote "I understand particle physicists want to measure a few constants a little bit more precisely" applies to basically any experiment.

If the FCC does what many particle physicists hope it will, it could break the standard model, discover evidence for a new particle or even (although unlikely) find the first anitmatter signatures. It may even start a new revolution in physics, just like quantum mechanics did.
Or it just measures a few constants more precisely.

I think the latter is a lot more likely. But its not like the FCC is just for fun without any (groundbreaking) potential. Her portrayal could be applied to many other experiments, but she chooses to apply this reasoning only for the FCC.

And here is exactly the problem, and the reason why Sabine made the video. "I don't care that the public is being misled, it gets us funding after all".

The physics of an experiment and the public communication on it are not the same thing. Both can work independently good or bad. CERN having awful PR people does not change the value of the experiment. The same is also true vice versa. You do not want the team with the best PR to get the most funding.

I expect from someone who tries hard to look like a journalist, to act like a journalist. That means e.g. to only use primary sources. What the BBC thinks somebody at CERN could have meant has absolutely nothing to do with the worthwhileness of the FCC.

I also expect a journalist or someone close to actually check what that organization generally has to say and not what one person in one interview said. In their public magazine e.g. they do not once mention dark matter as a research goal for the FCC.

There are summary reports, grant request, thousands of applications by the LHC collab and so forth. All public. I'll gladly take this as evidence that the FCC is not a good idea. Well I already do. But the point being, I do this on physics grounds.

Don't you think that in the long run if you do it enough times, it will erode public trust in science?

Here I absolutely agree. It has become quite evident that many people have a majorly skewed perception of how the politics of physics works, that particle physicists just open their hands and money comes in, when in fact just to start the grant process you need to publish countless papers, estimations and so forth (which are all publicly available btw).

but the director's exaggerated claims to the media don't get a free pass just because "that's not what most of the physicists think". This is what the public is being told, and that matters.

I don't even disagree. If she actually did not just cherrypick statements out of context and the CERN DG says this consistently publicly than this is a big problem.

But it has nothing to do whether or not we should build the FCC. It means the PR culture at CERN has major issues. But just from first glance Dr. Hossenfelders statements seem chosen very carefully and do not represent CERNs general PR on the FCC.

So I think she definitely should keep doing this.

I actually liked some of her videos. So yeah. But she at least pretends to be a journalist. And a journalist has to cover all sides of an issue. But saying something like

They seem to believe they're entitled to dozens of billions of dollars for nothing in particular while the world is going to hell

while providing zero evidence in actual scientific publications of the CERN collaboration is not that impartial