Description of the article: The incentive structure for scientists and science writers is towards hype. More exaggeration often means more clicks or attention/funding dollars.
The nature of scientific research, where millions of papers are produced every year and any one result is rarely meaningful on its own doesn't lend itself well to being news. Every study has flaws, but when its a news story, you need two things: something new, and something that's a story. It needing to be new means focusing on whatever was just published, before its known if it has a big impact on subsequent research. And needing to be a story means limitations detract from the narrative and are left out.
Debunkers play double duty, confronting misinformation but also acting as a counterbalance to the incentives to hype things up. When you might be publicly called out, by colleagues or other science writers, there's a constraint on how far the exaggeration goes -- assuming you care about your reputation.
