Two things: 1) The media is publishing stories questioning the study 2) If there's fault its from the study, not the media, which is why I linked directly to the study and not a story about the study Here is a story that addresses the issues with research, estimates, etc. https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/sturgis-coronavirus-report-explained Now, let's look at how the Washington Post reported on the study (https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/09/08/worst-case-scenerios-sturgis-rally-may-be-linked-266000-coronavirus-cases-study-says/): Yes, the article does a fairly good job of presenting both sides, but in today's "Twitter-like" society, people will draw conclusions based on what the headline says. They ignore the "could" and look at "Worst Case." For those who took the time, they would see that the 266,000 is at the highest end. The Inverse.com article (who?) blows more holes in it by talking about lack of peer reviews, and that the paper is not even a scientific paper, but an economic one. The media is in the business of making money. They make money by sensationalizing headlines and even developing narratives to push an agenda. Unfortunately, people will just look at the sound bite, or headline and make judgments from that. Then... many "journalists" who are really op ed hacks end up being considered experts. People who don't know any better won't care because they need a quick hitter to inform them of what is going on. So, to say the media is publishing stories to question the study is not entirely false. However, the majority of the audience will not take the time to read the story. Is it the audience's fault, the media's fault, or the study's fault? I might suggest a combination of all three.