@startswithabang - if you're writing about bad science because you're seeking to change the behavior of the people who do it, and you don't actually 𝑒𝑛𝑗𝑜𝑦 doing this, then it's a waste of time.
If you're trying to help keep people from getting fooled by bad science, then it's a noble thing to do, not necessarily a waste of time. But unless it's fun for you, you should let people who enjoy it do this job.
Personally I write about crackpots and other scientific mistakes because:
1) I like making fun of people. (I'm not saying this is good, but I have to admit it.)
2) I find it fascinating how sitting right next to good science there is not-so-good science, and bad science, and so on until we get to complete madness. It's fascinating to try to *define* what counts as good science, and it's fascinating how people can be motivated to put a lot of energy into completely nutty science, not just out of charlatanism (which would be easy to understand), but often out of some sincere but extremely misguided attempt to figure out the world.
Both of these led me to write the Crackpot Index, which is a mixture of analysis and mockery.