We'll they do when there's common myths that get disproved. Like that guy who cracked his knuckles on only one hand for nearly all of his life. But yeah I get your point.
Thats the only time when things have a general interest. Negative results are very important to people directly involved in studying something but what general interest (or value) is there in a story "chemical xyz123 does not work as an effective catalyst for the reaction between abc123 and def678" for anyone not directly researching those things?
There is no interest to the general public. But that doesn't mean scientists can't carve out their own online community like Wikipedia and start to categorize all of this information. It would for them probably be what stackoverflow is to programmers.
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/03/13/health-myth-is-crac...