I think the media often exaggerates the importance of a study, or amplifies the bias/interpretation of the scientist. Often reporting interpretations as fact. Thus scientists don't always have a massive incentive to put the record straight. Where scientifically inept reporting has been called out, it has often been in quirky inconsequential instances where the reporting came out of left field entirely.

(John Oliver - Scientific Studies)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rnq1NpHdmw

(Molly Crocket - Ted Talk)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b64qvG2Jgro Given there are many sarcastic awards such as Darwin Awards or Razzies or the award for Frivolous Lawsuits. I thought there should be a reward for this also. We don't need a grand prize because the media outlet won't want the award anyway. But we would need something to acknowledge or incentivize scientists to call out media that puffs up the importance of their own research and exaggerates the results. Which I have yet to see any scientist do. I've only seen scientists who called out coverage were the conclusions from the media were tangential and weird. Not simply exaggerated. I enjoy making YouTube's showing the difference between studies and their coverage. I made one that looks at Robotic Microsurgery

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWydV_w4Nzk&t=107s And another that looked at an obesity meta-analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaL0RtCGo6o

Does anyone else have some good examples of bad science coverage, where the original study can be freely accessed? Or has your study been misrepresented?