The point of the article is that they don't communicate their professional interpretations of the data. They pick how they want people to act, and then say what

The point of the article is that they don't communicate their professional interpretations of the data. They pick how they want people to act, and then say whatever sounds scientific that will yield that outcome. This seems to be a common pathology amongst academics. Put another way, they manipulate the public and then get upset when people stop trusting them, apparently unable to see the link between those two things.