but this is not entirely academia's fault. I'm reminded of the ongoing conversation about alcohol's impact on our health. Over the decades, if you've consumed mainstream media, you've been told everything from "2 glasses of wine per day is good for you" to "no amount of alcohol is good for you" and everything in between.
What's difficult is that it's hard to communicate the nuance of what a study actually studied. How many people were involved? What were the methods used? What was the effect size? What were the confounding factors that couldn't be controlled for? None of this can be effectively communicated in a world that reads headlines and probably not much beyond that.
And of course, the media does sensationalize because they're incentivized to. You'll click a headline that says "alcohol is good for you, says science" but probably won't click a headline that tries to communicate the nuance.