The problem here is not Science. It's the perverse incentives in Academia and Journalism. In Science as it should be practised, yes, a scientist talking to a j

The problem here is not Science. It's the perverse incentives in Academia and Journalism. In Science as it should be practised, yes, a scientist talking to a journalist should "explain the the data and results and why that data makes sense". The journalist should then paraphrase that clearly for their audience, without altering the essential conclusions of the study/paper/experiment. But this is so naive it's laughable now. Nobody, ever, does this. The scientist wants maximum impact, so will maximise the sensational aspects of their results. In turn the journalist wants maximum clicks, so will sensationalise more. What ends up being read by the public can be a very long way away from any conclusion that the data actually supports.