The problem here is not journalism - it's people unable or unwilling to read correctly. The second sentence contains a link to the study [1] with all the information you need.
> Which is why almost no one reads that stuff
Yep, it is clear people don't read this stuff; many simply assume things instead.
When you fail to read an article then assume it's another example of your prior belief, especially if completely incorrect as in this case, you're simply creating a world view that is not the actual world.
Hmm you've inspired an idea. For stories like this, wish there was some browser extension that would link the study (maybe through user submitted content?) That way, users can avoid clicking the link altogether and just go read the study.
The problem is most people aren’t qualified to correctly interpret scientific studies. Even if the abstracts are written in laypeople terms, the studies often contain important nuances.
In an ideal world we would have competent scientific journalism that can talk about science both accurately and also in an interesting way. Alas…
Your issues are not really resolvable. The nuances are complex, so you either need to cover enough depth to convey the accuracy, which will lose or bore too many readers, or you dumb it down enough to make it consumable by less sophisticated readers, and lose the nuance.
And there's ample journalism over that whole spectrum. You just cannot have both accuracy and simplicity.
The problem here is not journalism - it's people unable or unwilling to read correctly. The second sentence contains a link to the study [1] with all the information you need.
> Which is why almost no one reads that stuff
Yep, it is clear people don't read this stuff; many simply assume things instead.
When you fail to read an article then assume it's another example of your prior belief, especially if completely incorrect as in this case, you're simply creating a world view that is not the actual world.
[1] https://www.nber.org/papers/w30833