Quite simply, when the specialist tell you that it is not news worthy, then it is probably not news worthy. Otherwise we get all these new particle discovered c

Quite simply, when the specialist tell you that it is not news worthy, then it is probably not news worthy. Otherwise we get all these new particle discovered clickbait, where the journalists just neglect to mention that the "particle" in question is a compound state that was well studied in the 60ies or that the particle in question is just an oscillation mode of a crystal. (I am not joking, both are examples that were well upvoted on HN.) And that is just the ideal case, where journalists report on experiments. In theory most articles are just as interesting as someone created a branch on a github project, that is the very first step towards something that may develop into something interesting, or it may not. So yeah, "just getting anyone to speculate what a finding means is hard," because everybody knows that science journalists try to feed the public bullshit. Seriously, every single climate change denier I ever discussed with has given me page after page of links to popular science reporting where the entire problem was, that the journalist found someone who was willing to speculate and these speculations turned out to be wrong.