This post, and the many others like it, simply repeat the experimental shortcomings and potential sources of error that the NASA staff themselves point out in their communications.
It's sort of like science blogspam--repeating what someone else already said, but injecting more emotion into it to attract pageviews.
Normal media does not stress these experimental shortcomings, nor note that the measured effect has decreased. I consider it basic scientific skepticism.
It's sort of like science blogspam--repeating what someone else already said, but injecting more emotion into it to attract pageviews.