I would maybe argue that the vast majority of science reporting especially in large news outlets is bad science reporting since the modern media ecosystem has strong preference for sensationalism.

It's why there's so much distrust of science globally. We've cured cancer! Except we haven't, it was mouse studies. Except we have! Except not really, that drug failed it's first clinical trial. Except we have! Except that's just mechanistic reasoning not proven by any observational studies.

So then people think, wow, these scientists have no idea what they're doing and just make stuff up all the time to get attention. Which they aren't - most peer-reviewed studies include a mountain of caveats and I've rarely seen, even in large meta-analyses and Cochrane Reviews, papers that make half as strong a claim as ad-revenue obsessed news editors do with their hyperbolic headlines.

If BBC hadn't editorialized, most of us likely wouldn't have clicked it. The paper is interesting but more interesting when you read it through the lens of "does this validate the health benefits of bird-watching?" which is a perspective BBC provided

That's good science journalism imo

fair criticism, but science reporting is to elicit the public interest (otherwise, you could just publish a link to the paper) and that requires getting the public's interest in the first place