Much like the Voynich Manuscript, which is so much of a media sensation that the media has now taken to publishing pieces about the sensationalism of the sensationalism, reporters evidently want you to pay attention to them more than they care about being accurate.  Or maybe just almost as much, and in any event enough for them to let their desire for the former override their concern for the latter.  (Another version of this was the pearl-clutching caused by a Greek government press release about a small bit of the Odyssey found in Greece from last year.)

The latest example is the stupid kerfluffle provoked by a recent press release of a 2015 discovery.  As is typical, the UK journalists are the first responders, combining the appearance of intelligence (it's the Guardian, after all) with a hasty indifference to care. 

This has now been explained and contextualized by a somewhat better article.  This latter one points out that the text seems to have two lists, one about reasons to tolerate Roman Catholics, and one about reasons not to tolerate them.

Why are academics so often cynical about how the media reports scholarship?  This is a good example.  We don't work on the spin-cycle of reporters, and almost always the first thought gets nuanced.  We're all about the second thought, to be honest.  Which is not really what sells papers, or these days generates clicks.