Comment by gus_massa
I completely agree. When I see a post here I had no idea if i's a good journal or a crackpot journal [1]. The impact factor is sometimes useful, but the level in each area is very different. (In math, a usual values is about 1, but in biology it's about 5.)
Also, many sites just copy&paste the press release from the university that many times has a lot of exaggerations, and sometimes they ad a few more.
[1] If the journal has too many single author articles, it's a big red flag.
Yes, I think science communication is also a big part of the problem. It's a hard one to do right, but easy to do wrong and few journalists especially care or have the resources to do it right (and the end results tends to be less appealing, because there's a lot less certainty involved)