I don't know; I bet that happens pretty well now: Scientist says, "well, foo could be because A, B, or C; we just don't know." Journalist asks, "what would happ

I don't know; I bet that happens pretty well now: Scientist says, "well, foo could be because A, B, or C; we just don't know." Journalist asks, "what would happen if B?" Scientist says, "well, it's unlikely, but D could happen". Newspaper reports, "Scientists Show D Happens Because Foo Causes B". The real problem is there is no disincentive to ignore the truth and publish sensationalist drivel, but there are definitive incentives to do so: you get more readers, you tend to embed yourself in whatever philosophical echo chamber you are trying to reach, and, as a result, you get more money. Until there are disincentives, the problem will never go away.