I helped out a colleague of mine today, who was fact-checking a couple of sentences in a story that's going to come out in a large circulation magazine (that shall remain nameless). The article is about graphene, and in draft form included a sentence along the lines of "Graphene is 1000x better at conducting electricity than copper." That sounds great and exciting. It's short, simple, and easy to remember. Unfortunately, it's just not true unless accompanied by a huge asterisk that links to a page full of qualifications and disclaimers.
The challenge: Come up with a replacement that gets the main point across (graphene is a remarkable material) without being a gross distortion or dissolving into scientific jargon.
My response: "Graphene is an electrical conductor that rivals copper and silver, and is much lighter and stronger." At least this is true (or moreso, anyway), though it's longer and doesn't have an easy-to-remember number in it.
The search for a simple, one-sentence, exclamatory pronouncement can lead science journalists (and university public relations people) down a dangerous path. Often really great science is simply more complicated than a sound-bite. Moreover, the complications can be fascinating and important. It takes a special journalist to recognize this.