This is certainly a very interesting correlation, and demands further study. Perhaps there is a causal link. But it's just (predictably) irresponsible journalism to head such a piece with a factually incorrect headline.
The article itself states that the authors believe there is an element of causation in the study
"Alcohol might represent a modifiable risk factor for cognitive impairment, and primary prevention interventions targeted to later life could be too late."
The "may" is, of course a kind of scientific hedging, but I do not think the journalists made an unfair reading of the paper. Bear in mind many of these articles are made in consultation with the authors themselves. If you have any problems with the conclusions of the article, you should take it to the authors of the paper itself, not the journalists
This is on the editor's heads.
[edit] Even the title of the original paper is "Moderate alcohol consumption as risk factor for adverse brain outcomes and cognitive decline" which suggest causation. why should the headline be weaker than the title of the paper itself?
Jumping to conclusions in the popular press hurts the reputation of scientists. Journalists and editors have been doing this for years, especially on topics that sell papers, specifically what to eat and what to not eat, how to gain or lose weight, or how to live longer.
But I think our disagreement is philosophical. Ultimately I feel much of medical research is prescriptive - and thus there is no misrepresentation, except perhaps amount of uncertainty that is associated with these studies.
I think hese uncertainties are poorly communicated by scientists themselves, and just appending "maybe" to every headline adds very little to the conversation.
Welcome to the Washington Post. In cases like this it's fairly obvious but across the board there is such a low standard for journalism that I can't bring myself to pay the $1 to subscribe.
When Bezos bought it I had hoped we'd see a new era of high quality American journalism, but the opposite trend has occurred.
At first, I thought it was meant to be an insurance policy against politicians turning against Amazon, but now I have doubts about whether Bezos wishes the paper to do actual journalism.
Edit: I'm not being sarcastic. Even if you read the online version of a print paper, you're getting articles that weren't optimized for clicks.
This Reddit thread has more info: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/cuun9/what_do_yo...
Notice how even big stories often appear significantly later on the FT website compared to other outlets, but when they do appear they've generally got the facts straight.
Their subscription fees are substantial, but if we don't want everything reduced to ad-based sensationalism we're going to need to pay actual money.
Your thinking gets very cloudy very fast and then the cloudiness seems to have this exponential decay. Even days afterward I don't feel quite right.