#1
I agree with you.
Three years ago Nature made the choice to go down this road when they were presented work that would have allowed them to maintain the perception, and reality (even whilst rife with unethical research), reflected in their impact factor. Science also had the same choice.
At the time of those events (three years ago), I am sure some found it surprising. In retrospect, however, it should not have been because the amount of effort required to correct the record, in light of an admission of widespread fraud, is far greater than continually deflecting blame and prolonging the practice of publishing papers unworthy of the respective journal names.
They disrespected the likes of Lord Rayleigh, who published his famous Principle of Similitude paper that alluded to a generalised law that summarised all known physical laws, by using the journal in this manner. Using a reputation that was, in large part, established by submissions of esteemed scholars over the past two centuries, to publish work that does not even adhere to simple tenets in science, will inevitably earn scorn; and rightfully so.
So be it.