This example is a prime example. People see a **** report about the science made by ass-clowns who don't understand science and they automatically call the science junk, when in fact, the science never made such claims at all. Only dumbass reporters trying to sell advertising for their corporate puppet-masters make these claims.
Science gets a bad name in no small part because OTHER dumbass members of the media use the reporting of the science to discredit the science itself because they simply accept the reports as accurate to the claims made by science, and thus they too show a complete ignorance of science as well.
For example, Most of the pundits who denounce global warming are simply ignorant of how science works. While most of the pundits who promote global warming are equally ignorant of how science works.
Therefore, the average layman, ignorant of science, accepts the false dichotomy created by dumb-asses as though it were truth, when in fact it is simply a debate between morons.
People who show a true interest and understanding of science will read the actual journal articles and compare and review them directly with the proper scientific skepticism necessary when reviewing scientific material.
The problem is that people think a scientific conclusion is akin to a claim of veracity. This is not true. All studies are simply making a conclusion about the support/non-support of the hypothesis.
This still does not make the hypothesis true, only that it was eitehr supported or not supported by the results of the study.
If people understood this correctly, they would hesitate to call something "junk science" because of the way it is reported in the news, because they would be aware of the media's total ignorance of science.