First, let me make clear that the scientific method is the source of practically all well-being we enjoy in modern society. We owe the comforts to engineers, the duration of our relatively disease-free life to doctors and so. There are people in this world who doubt overwhelming global scientific consensus (for example on climate change) because of their political and economic agendas, and these are the kinds of people that should not be involved in government (or society in general) at all. There are many countries whose governments are biased against science because of their religion, especially in the ultra-conservative Islamic states, and look what shit places these countries are. Science has become sexy again in the last five years or so and I am glad that is the case.
With that being said, I approach science-news with more suspicion than ever.
Frequently, there are reports on significant developments in diverse fields that fail to live up to their initial premise. Projects are oversold. This might be due to scientists having to advertise for funding, or due to journalists fighting to make readers check out their articles. Maybe that's just the small slice you get from reading the part that makes it to the news in the first place. Sensationalism has worked in other news sectors, and now that the interest in science has been sparked, the same methods are applied there - which is a shame, because a chain of scientific inquiry might yield beneficial results even when there is no gamechanger to be expected at the end of it.
I understand that with limited budgets, only the most promising ideas can be pursued, but if everybody claims to have the ultimate MacGuffin within reach, it is perceived that nobody does. The more complex the topic, the more likely it is that the ultimate answer to the question posed will be answered by generations to come, which does not fare well with the short-lived attention span of modern media.
An example of such exaggeration is the search for extraterrestrial life. Every unexpected finding on interplanetary missions is always commented on with "might indicate life". Methane cloud on Mars? Maybe microbes. Gleaming white spots on Ceres? Possible remains from carbon-rich asteroids that could have also brought life to earth. Enceladus is stretched and squeezed by the gravity of Saturn and its other moons? This should cause friction and heat, so maybe life will dwell in underground hotspots. Yes, it is possible that some form of life might exist in any of those places, but just because something is possible doesn't mean it's plausible or even probable.
What else bugs me - mabye because of my lack of information or understanding, I admit - is how quickly a deduction is presented as fact in popular programs (I'm looking at you, Michio Kaku and that show narrated by Morgan Freeman).
There are subjects not sensible to discuss yet because there needs to be a lot more evidence to evaluate. Nobody will try to debate Gravity, we have all the information we need. Climate change is a bit more difficult, but the evidence we have is plenty and it is conclusive.
Dark Matter on the other hand (the unknown source of the excess gravity that holds galaxies together) seems to me a subject that, while of course all information should be gathered, is not worth discussing today as we have so little to go by. What if the source of that excess gravity is just regular matter that we can't detect from where we are, but would be obvious if we had data from multiple points in space? Lots of space documentaries touch on this (dark) matter, but it seems to me that most of it is just speculation.
So all in all, I glance over the science news of both general and dedicated publications, but even though the scientific method is designed to only live by facts and wash away personal bias, the same does not count for the journalism that reports on it. Take it with a pinch of salt.
(And yes, I am aware that the proportions in that picture are a total mess.)