[astro123]

That's a fair point. I love reading computer hardware rumours, most of which are probably total garbage (and probably obviously so to anyone in the field). And in this case, whether the general public thinks the universe in MOND or LCDM really doesn't matter at all.

My real issue is when this reporting is on things where the general public's opinion does matter. Things that the general public might vote on. Economics, medicine, etc. Having seen this type of reporting in a field that I do know something about (and a field where there is no real incentive to mislead, again MOND vs LCDM, who cares), I'm a lot more distrustful of science reporting in fields I don't know much about (and where there are incentives to mislead).

If they had published the article exactly as is, giving you all the excitement, but just added a single line somewhere saying "this is new work that is up against a large body of previous work that points in the opposite direction. Let's see what happens, but its a cool idea" I'd be totally fine with it.

[matt_kantor]

The final sentence of the linked article is this:

> But it’s important to keep in mind that so far the bulk of the evidence still points towards dark matter, and it’ll take much more work to topple that hypothesis entirely.

[astro123]

Eek! I guess I'm more OK with this now...

[craftinator]

Lol, TLDR; strikes again. Guess OP should've read more than the abstract if they "would've been fine with the article if it had contained a sentence like this one"