This is what happens with media coverage of pharmaceutical development, and often science in general. Journalists want stories that people can relate to, that d

This is what happens with media coverage of pharmaceutical development, and often science in general. Journalists want stories that people can relate to, that don't have the uncertainty that is inherent in science, and that will grab the public's attention. The ridiculous tone is often something that horrifies the people being reported on, but seems very difficult to escape. It doesn't help that here, I think, we're seeing a community and media largely centered around software development trying to deal with a field that is far, far riskier, and has far less certainty at every step. Good ideas in software might not catch on, but good ideas in science more often than not turn out to be entirely wrong. Do a closed beta of your software, too, and while your users might not end up liking the software much, it's very unlikely that it's just going to fundamentally fail to work at all. Clinical trials can often end up that way.