[senux]

I agree. This sort of article is partly the reason why we so often here something like "science can't make up its mind" or "x is good now but was bad before, and will be bad again soon".

Instead of sharing accurate information about the findings of these researchers, news organizations use them to write catchy, clickbait-y articles. Needless to say, researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.

This issue goes beyond just researchers and news organizations, though. There have been plenty of discussions here in HN and other places about how scientific research is somewhat broken due to how it rewards quantity versus quality for example.

[tinyhouse]

> researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.

I would also add that like everything in life, there's a large distribution of researchers. Some do poor research. This is true for all fields. One example is when a researcher has an hypothesis in mind which they try to force even if the results don't really support it. Doing great science is hard and researchers in the end have pressure to publish papers.

[busyant]

> Needless to say, researchers are often to blame as well, since they participate in interviews using vague language so that they can benefit from the exposure, well aware of the repercussions of their behavior.

Universities also have PR departments that tout their faculty research. I imagine these PR groups contribute to the hype.

[zarq]

It's really hard to fight this though, because it may take many years, even decades, to thoroughly answer a follow-up question. By then, everyone has forgotten about the original reason something got published.