Amusingly - fittingly for our times - in the same issue of the exact same journal (Nature) another paper has been published that indicates that the prior, so much "hyped" discrepancy might be due to the theory having being applied inaccurately in the past. When computed with the new method, the experimental and theoretical models align far more accurately.

So now all that matters is what kind of article do your want to write. A sensationalist one to get eyeballs or a realistic one that is far less exciting. Thus the exact same discovery can be presented via two radically different headlines:

BBC goes with "Muons: 'Strong' evidence found for a new force of nature" https://www.bbc.com/news/56643677

> "Now, physicists say they have found possible signs of a fifth fundamental force of nature"

ScienceDaily says: "The muon's magnetic moment fits just fine" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/04/210407114159.h...

> "A new estimate of the strength of the sub-atomic particle's magnetic field aligns with the standard model of particle physics."

There you have it, the mainstream media is not credible even when they attempt to write about a physics experiment ...