Extensive studies on the thermodynamics of DNA helix formation have long shown that there's a very important contribution for base stacking [1]. This isn't news. What is new in this study is that they explore how hydrophobic interactions could play a role in DNA binding interactions with proteins by varying the solvent hydrophobicity. The title and linked article are quite misleading, the paper itself is making very different claims [2].
Every pop sci article about a new journal article in some publication is always the same; personal question: doesn't it get frustrating needing to give an addenda of all the misleading commentary?
Pop science publications literally do more harm than good by miscommunicating the actually novel aspect of a particular discovery, irrespective of superficial intent (popularizing science topics). Oh wait, why do they even exist to begin with? Assumption: to soak up all the advertising dollars go around.
How unproductive can an industry really be? The cost alone in wasted human-hours time analyzing and post-processing to discern what is real and what is hype and nonsense must be huge.
The thing's that, as far as I can tell, economic/political journalism seems to be at least as corrupted (intellectually; not talking about moral corruption), where explanations of complex phenomena are grossly oversimplified beyond recognition. Despite knowing that, it's hard to make a precise study of that sort of corruption because the actual underlying truth is unclear.
By contrast, it seems reasonable to read pop-science journalism and then compare it to a corresponding scientific story. We can then try to understand the nature of media twisting, then apply that understanding to helping us interpret journalism covering economics/politics, where the underlying truth isn't as easily otherwise-determined.
In short, it's neat to see pop-science journalism in action as it helps to put other sorts of journalism into perspective.
---
Separately, I'd note the expression that "There's no such thing as bad publicity.".
While science-journalism may not be particularly successful in informing the public about science, it might have a positive effect on public-relations with the scientific community, helping the community to feel more connected to the scientific establishment.
I mean, it seems to work in, say, sports, where local communities will cheer on competitors from their community despite not having any real direct attachment to the competitors' efforts. It's my understanding that this sort of emotional connection helps to keep professional sports well-funded, driving public interest in their activities.
Then ditto for stuff like the expensive Apollo missions to put someone on Luna, which I've heard that Americans took to be a national victory (and perhaps others found it to be a human victory).
In short, science journalism might help drive public support for the sciences, even if it fails to convey actual science.
[1] https://academic.oup.com/nar/article/36/suppl_2/W163/2505801
[2] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/35/17169