I find their writing overdramatic and often missing the central point.

For an example recently discussed on HN: "Computer Scientists Achieve ‘Crown Jewel’ of Cryptography" -- misunderstanding the science, not investigating the larger context (in which it's just a form of FHE), pulling out the (overwrought) term of one person, to call it the "crown jewel", describing other work as "dazzling newcomers" and, of course, forgetting to investigate the practical constraints. These are errors in the basic craft of journalism.

I see the same problems in other articles in areas I have worked in which leads me to doubt the whole enterprise. It also likes "profile of a researcher" articles, which are typical talismanic pieces for the popular press void of any actual science.

It's probably fine to surface interesting topics, though there are other sources appear to use writers who are actual scientists, or who at least have scientific training.