Why does science journalism disappoint me?

 "I am not clever, merely curious" - A. Einstein

 I'm not a science journalist, I am a hobbyist who loves to know things. And something within me gets a kick out of explaining to others what I've discovered. My flaw? My flaw is that I have my own ideas that were kickstarted, buoyed and reinforced by the work done by Real Scientists. But my personal ideas corrupt my stories, because I want to find confirmation, and thus I must suffer from confirmation bias, in spite of myself. What I say is tainted by what I think.

 Science journalism is infected by the same disease, and there's no cure. Both by the journalist himself and by the corporation who employs him, the popularization of scientifically derived results only coincides with the science, only adopts as confirmation the science, only choses the science that congratulates what the journalist or his employer already feels.