Yes, I agree with you there about some science journalism, and in particular the tabloid variety. When you read quality writing like you'd find at Nature, Aeon/Psyche etc, which values the ideas for themselves rather than for what outrageously speculative headline can be squeezed out of them for "the man on the street", you can see a huge difference in the way it's being communicated. And you're right - it's not as successful, because the good stuff isn't negative-emotionally triggering (unless the worst kinds of tabloids get their hands on it).
Negativity bias deranks science stories that are all about careful, quiet optimism and cautious hopefulness. That's a huge, huge problem - especially as our curiosity seems to grow out of positive rather than negative emotional responses to information. (Anhedonia, strongly correlated with depression, is the inability to feel pleasure, and it includes the inability to take pleasure in learning something new - ie. it kills your curiosity).
Anyway, I'm rambling. Thank you for this thoughtful clarification!