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.
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.