In the hands of a pop science journalist/communicator, traffic/audience engagement are often used as criteria for success/career advancement/job security. Thus, there isn't proper, unbiased funding for the serious evaluation and consolidation of the conclusions that can be drawn from a new research paper. This is why we get the Buzzfeed-worthy "They compared honey to corn syrup, and you'll never guess which one was healthier" headlines instead of the boring-but-accurate "No variation reported in limited time-series study of sugar intake" that might better represent the data.
Seriously. If two things are chemically the same despite being from different provenance, chemistry teaches to expect identical behavior for the most part. Sometimes trace elements change things significantly. Why anyone would expect that of honey though, wishful thinking?
It's bad enough when they're talking about one sugar being healthier than another, but it really gets strange when they start comparing table salt.