I guess this is really more of a semantic argument; the examples you’ve given aren’t really “science”, inasmuch as they are, as you point out, biased and not searching for objective proof (which is the one requirement to actually being “science”). But it’s unfair to equate this kind of snake oil salesman with a news broadcast that mentions a study that may have questionable methods. The latter is irresponsible and should be policed; the former is, to be generous, willfully ignorant, or more realistically, fraudulent. It’s the difference between driving after two beers and driving with your eyes closed. Sure, the news might make a spurious connection between chocolate and weight loss or whatever, and that’s a bad thing, but not as bad as advising people to ignore the advice of medical professionals and undermine the entire truth telling enterprise.
That’s my problem with Trump vs. every other politician. I might hate all of Pence’s politics, but he at least understands the game. Trump wants to undermine trust in media, trust in facts, trust in science. If you don’t have that, how do you justify progress? How do you justify investment in research or technology, or anything required of being a world leader as a country? The relativism is dangerous. There are right answers.