> First, the discussion is about about news, not science (nor about general LLM behaviour).

What if science is the news, such as:

1. advancements in fusion power; or

2. progress/status of the Artemis missions; or

3. new LLM models and/or capabilities (e.g. Project Glasswing).

With things like that you typically have a press announcement/briefing, a research paper/publication, or both. That information is then presented in newspapers/media that may obscure, misrepresent, or overly generalize the original finding/announcement.

There may also be clarifications, retractions, etc. after publication, such as with the initial announcement/publication of the proof to Fermat's Last Theorem that initially had an error that was later corrected.

"First, the discussion is about about news, not science (nor about general LLM behaviour)."

That's a false dichotomy. Consider energy policy. What kind of power do you need to add to your grid? What are the risks for each type of power? How much CO2 does each type of power emit, etc? These are scientific questions which directly impact public policy and are consistently misreported by news sources.

So there is no line between these things. It is however an area which where accuracy can be measured. And when we do that, its hard to argue that allowing journalists without technical credentials to continue to have a platform is a good idea.

And I can make the same argument about several other topics including military matters. Literally, the 2 weapons systems the media hates the most have the 2 best track records on the battlefield. They aren't just wrong. They are literally the opposite of correct on many topics.