Thanks For Your Comment Urgelt,
I definitely agree with your main points.
Science journalists and communicators need to give a more complete context in their reporting of advances. There are some writers who do mention highly relevant unresolved problems, shortcomings and theoretical limitations. Alas, in our click-bait era, here is far too little of that and too much inadequately qualified hype.
Often egregiously omitted is any discussion of the underlying assumptions (often untested or inadequately tested) and previous predictive failures, in addition to glaring unknowns.
In science, as in politics, one must do one’s own critical research if one wants to get to dependable information and full context. It takes time and hard work. Maybe some day science journalists and communicators will be of amazing service to science by doing this for the public, but don’t hold your breath.