I agree, but the facts, early on weren't clear, so news people, being who they are, have to report what they found out, and later the facts changed. If they waited till all the facts were in, then people would have gone to different news sites with more info. News reporting, right or wrong, is about getting the scoop. And you can't make laws saying people can't report the facts as they know them ASAP. That would limit freedom of speech and be unconstitutional. So that's the way it is.
The media can certainly be obnoxious, but the public rewards this by wanting to hear all the details ASAP.
Think of it this way. I'm into horses, so I'll use an example from them. In horse nutrition, you don't have to
supplement vitamin C or iron, as you do for humans. Horses make their own vitamin C unless they are
supplemented, in which case, with an overload, their mechanism for making vitamin C shuts down. So, in most cases, it's actually not good to give a horse extra vitamin C. Same with iron. Horses have plenty unless thy have very rare cases of iron deficiencies, such as excessive bleeding or a rare disease. So giving iron, which gets stored, can make a horse have an excess of iron. That can be harmful to a horse. Most people don't know this, because they don't study horse nutrition in depth. So if they see a
supplement that leaves these out and another one that includes them, they are likely to think a supplement with vitamin C and iron is better. Should we forbid horse supplement manufacturers to add vitamin C and iron? There is so little regulation of supplements that it would be impossible.
People have to exercise their own will and knowledge and not look at the news if they don't want to, or choose supplements without harmful or useless things in them. We need to take some responsibility for what we allow into our lives, no matter what is out there. We all have the choice, and getting upset that others are not making the choice for us is unreasonable.