I'm a scientist and I know from many experiences that what you read about research in popular accounts is, more often than not, plainly wrong. Vital points are left out, qualifications are not mentioned, the experiment is not described in any meaningful way (see Banjo Johnny's problems above, where I guess the article just fails to mention a necessary control group to make the data understandable). Journalists usually are not trained in mathematics or scientific methodology, do not read the primary sources and do not care much for truth if the truth is too long or too awkward to tell.
When a scientist has written "there's a speculative interpretation of the data that should be read with a grain of salt" you can find that reported as "Prof. ... has shown".
Scientists have to learn a lot about the methods of their trade to make sure they do a decent job in performing and reporting experiments and their conclusions from the data. I tell you a secret. If lay people tell about scientific results that they knew it all along and that it is trivial, scientists like that about as much as folk musicians like it if someone says 'Oh, I see it's just a little bit blowing and fingering. I bet you I could do it at least as good in four weeks."

Wolfgang