> What the study exposed is that science journalists, whose literal job is to understand this stuff and explain it to the general public, suck at their jobs.

I was under their impression the job of a journalist was to get attention of readers to generate ad and subscription revenue.

Not that I disagree with the claim that they should explain things to a general public to accomplish the above, but that's not how our system is currently set up. If doing a poor job makes them more money - that's the real issue.