I don't think this problem can be addressed without talking about the fundamental difference in incentives between the groups.
Reporters are incentivized to get the story to sell. Especially as there are more & more freelancers, competition is becoming intense. And let's face it, by nature, we as consumers of information are drawn to the outlandish and sensational. There was an HN a few weeks ago about someone who put out fake crazy headlines and got crazy CTR on Twitter.
Scientists are incentivized to be objective in finding the truth. Scientists avoid making claims about causation until the last possible moment just so they can be sure all the variables have been controlled for and the results are not outliers.
I don't have any well-thought through answers... but thoughts?
Have you ever worked in scientific research yourself?
Scientists sell their story and their version of The Truth just as much as reporters sell their news stories.
This image of the objective scientist that prevails outside of academia is mostly false.
If I remember correctly, you'll find more material to think about here (see researching what your boss wants you to, researching what funding agencies want you to, etc. etc.):
Reporters are incentivized to get the story to sell. Especially as there are more & more freelancers, competition is becoming intense. And let's face it, by nature, we as consumers of information are drawn to the outlandish and sensational. There was an HN a few weeks ago about someone who put out fake crazy headlines and got crazy CTR on Twitter.
Scientists are incentivized to be objective in finding the truth. Scientists avoid making claims about causation until the last possible moment just so they can be sure all the variables have been controlled for and the results are not outliers.
I don't have any well-thought through answers... but thoughts?