> But I do blame the people who are responsible for preemptively jumping the gun and broadcasting the suggestion that these questions have been answered
Usually when such claims are broadcast, it happens in two steps:
1) Some researcher (often a PhD student) finds some correlation (with our without conscious P-hacking) that has p<0.0.5. Their thesis may depend on it.
2) Some news broadcaster makes a story from the article. Their job/income may depend on it.
The broadcaster for broadcasting misinformation. The PhD student isn't producing misinformation (unless, they are, which is bad af).
I'm sure that every professional reporter, whether science popularizer or something else, understands and takes seriously the need for obey the Hippocratic Oath in their own profession, too ("first, do no harm").
But.. it's not like the reporter isn't aware that the constraints they are subject to (much higher time pressure + less familiarity with the topic vs the researcher's low time pressure + intimacy with the topic) don't automatically absolve them of their responsibility to own any mistakes they make once the genie's out of the bottle. It mostly hurts their readership if they start employing non-facts once they add them to their repertoire of decision heuristics.
Sure science reporting is definitely a good force in the world for helping people make decisions over important stuff, but.. like.. the researcher's reputation is ruined for causing potential damage to academia, but a reporter doesn't have skin in the game and has little to lose if others trusted them.
Usually when such claims are broadcast, it happens in two steps:
1) Some researcher (often a PhD student) finds some correlation (with our without conscious P-hacking) that has p<0.0.5. Their thesis may depend on it. 2) Some news broadcaster makes a story from the article. Their job/income may depend on it.
Now who, exactly, would you blame.