The title style "Evidence shows water does X" tends to make people think "there is concrete evidence that physical water does X", rather than "an abstracted model of spheres intended to mimic some aspect of water predicts that water might do X." When people read the article and find out the methods within don't support the conclusions they feel are presented in the title, they understandably become somewhat hostile.
As other comments note, the actual people doing this work are typically ~very~ aware the limitations of their models and that all results are best interesting fictions, but this typically does not make it into public-facing science communications.
Why the press release would be designed to encourage readers to inuit stronger conclusions that actually supported by the work is left as an exercise to the reader. How might this impact public trust in scientific institutions?