The problem in one case was that they gave advice with insufficient evidence. That proves my point about failure to distinguish between well proven facts and best guess consensus opinions.
In the other case they were arguing for deliberately impeding the sharing knowledge because the hoi polloi could not understand it. They wanted the public told what was good for them, not the truth.
So a scientist was dishonest and/or made a mistake. What's your point, that journalists aren't dishonest and dont make mistakes? I have no idea what you're arguing for.
I can tell you what my point is: an expert will know more than a journalist. I have no idea how this can be controversial. If it wasn't the case, the journalist would be the expert and it would become true by definition.
In the other case they were arguing for deliberately impeding the sharing knowledge because the hoi polloi could not understand it. They wanted the public told what was good for them, not the truth.