The article closes by asking press officers and reporters to be a little more critical of the material they pass on. Unfortunately, that is extremely unlikely to happen. There is too much information to be critical of and incentives are not aligned to make that happen. If the press passes on a breathless press release that turns out to be false, they just point the finger at somebody else, but in the meantime, they've driven traffic to whatever organization they're working for.
Ultimately, the scientist should be held accountable for this in his community. Similar to the massive black eyes Fleischmann and Pons got for cold fusion[1], Quach should be dragged across the carpet for this.
"If the press passes on a breathless press release that turns out to be false, they just point the finger at somebody else, but in the meantime, they've driven traffic to whatever organization they're working for."
I think this is overwhelmingly the toughest problem to solve here for any mainstream rag. Take the Sydney newspaper mentioned in the article for example. If their competitors publish the more dramatic version of the story replete with the sensationalist headline while the Sydney Morning Herald in an attempt to maintain some semblance of journalistic integrity don't, guess which papers the public are going to buy. It's obvious where the incentive lies.
Unfortunately the reality is the public isn't going to change as it is in human nature to pay attention to the more "surprising" news (Tiger! in caveman days). So if the public isn't going to change and the market rewards yellow journalism what's left? Regulation? I don't know.
Ultimately, the scientist should be held accountable for this in his community. Similar to the massive black eyes Fleischmann and Pons got for cold fusion[1], Quach should be dragged across the carpet for this.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion (my poor alma matter :)