How Did Astronaut DNA Become 'Fake News'?

Ironically, the amp link isn't loading for me. Non-amp link:

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/scott-ke...

In any case, this Atlantic article was beat to the punch by Ars Technica two days ago:

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/scott-kellys-medical...

HN discussion - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16599612

I wish they hadn't called it, "fake news," which I'd reserve for misinformation that's initially spread by those who know that it's false. In this case, I think that journalists' lack of knowledge about genetics led to erroneous reporting.

“For reasons that remain unclear, the news stories that erupted this week resurfaced a couple of nasa press releases from January, which came out after the study’s scientists presented some of their preliminary results at a conference. The releases were summaries, and some of the language was ripe for misinterpretation.”

If a Journalist can’t explain a journalism event, I am disinclined to ever believe anything they will ever write.

Why is it hard to find the time stamp of the press release or article that started this firestorm if noise? Why is there no explanation of why that approach doesn’t work? Are date sort searches really that useless in this situation?

The same way anything else becomes fake news: a headline that is seemingly the product of a mental function that optimises for the most sensational emotion under the loosest possible construction of the facts (and sometimes even looser than that).