The science journalist is often blamed for this sort of misunderstanding, for dramatising the scientists' achievements. Science journalists are often exempt from the pressure to publish promptly, unless reporting on a major breakthrough. They still, however, have the constraints of competition, deadlines, and budgets. This means that only one point of view is presented and so can lead to biases. Errors in scientific reporting are often language related.
Journalists can often introduce their own biases into their writing.
This can lead to speculation that is often unsubstantiated, and hence misrepresentation. There is to a certain extent a vicious circle between scientists and journalists caused by these problems. Scientists are concerned about inaccurate reporting, so don't co-operate with the press. The press run the stories anyway, with more inaccuracies than there may have been with the scientists' cooperation. Another problem can be the editor.