I've yet to encounter a speaker or article that just stated there is an observation they can't explain. They all talk about some theory or theories to try to explain things.
But that's not science. It takes a discernible reader to learn about this topic, and they should be able to distinguish between science and popular science which enjoys speculating. I think both are interesting and important in educating the public.
That's how science works. There's a mystery and science purposes a hypothesis resolving that mystery. If a hypothesis is clearly more consistent with the evidence then other hypothesises, it wins out. If not, there continues to be a debate.
My point is that people aren't sticking to tested ideas when communicating with the public. They're throwing untested ideas at them, or sometimes multiple incompatible untested ideas at them.
And so? Are the 'science police' going to show up an arrest them?
There is a reason that scientists communicate with other scientists via papers and a process called peer review and not typically via the media. That is, to distill the topic down to a casual level requires many levels of abstraction and tend to be 'incorrect but interesting' as the media does not sell truth, but instead it sells advertising by making things interesting.