This post is almost two months old at this point, but I’ve just seen it. It’s a meta-article from the Guardian about science journalism, and it’s quite good. The biggest thing he misses is that the actual results of the study, which are probably quite technical and several steps removed from any general conclusion, will be fundamentally distorted to make them seem to have a massive impact on daily life.  This, however, might be done by the Journal’s PR people and not necessarily by the reporter.