I've been reading and criticizing media-hyped studies for a long time, and I've noticed there is an "interestingness bias" in these studies' conclusions. Media

I've been reading and criticizing media-hyped studies for a long time, and I've noticed there is an "interestingness bias" in these studies' conclusions. Media-hound scientists will always walk straight past the less interesting explanations of their data and seize on the most attention-grabbing conclusion as the one "the data clearly suggests." Then the comment section will go "what about the less interesting explanations"? Which of course were downplayed in the paper, and omitted entirely from the media promotion of the paper.