I too am noticing a big rash of conflicting information. And the problem actually isn't the information or the scientific studies themselves, but rather the person that is doing the research for that particular media outlet. I believe that there are too many people in the editorial or fact checking departments that actually do not know what they are doing. Or they're being lazy editors and fact checkers, that they decide to re-post whatever ABC News or AP News posted. What they don't seem to get is that, in the science journals, the studies that get published are only just that--some grad student who needs to publish his or her master's thesis. Most of the time, the scientific study is for science sake and is not applicable to everyday life.
Like the stretching study, where two grad students working on their master's thesis published on how stretching hinders performance. First of all, they cherry picked past data to match their own. Then, the trials were performed on elite and professional athletes. The kind of test that was done was that the athlete does a specific stretch and immediately performs a skill (e.g. hamstring stretch, slam dunk). Like we can all slam dunk. The data collected only showed a 2 to 3 percent decline in performance. That kind of percentage is negligible and may not even make a difference for the average person. Now, how does this apply to real life? It doesn't. Never, in a million years, are you going to see Blake Griffin call time out, do a ham-stretch, and immediately inbound the ball and dunk. That's not how basketball works. Or any other sport for that matter. Stretching occurs during warm-up, which takes place an hour before the game starts and then there's another 15 minute warm-up just before the game. This is the most ridiculous scientific study ever. And still they got the whole health and fitness magazine industry up in arms telling their readers not to bother with stretching. OMG!