best part of the argument is that it breeds even more articles that explains the rift and why there's nuances to saying that "ENCODE has revolutionized our understanding of noncoding DNA by showing that far from being junk, noncoding DNA contains lots of genetic regulatory switches."
and of course there's the usual practice of defending your journalistic colleagues by pushing the blame to the scientists hahha (see http://arstechnica.com/staff/2012/09/most-of-what-you-read-was-wrong-how-press-releases-rewrote-scientific-history/ )
"Yet the third sentence of the lead ENCODE paper contains an eye-catching figure that ended up being reported widely: "These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome." Unfortunately, the significance of that statement hinged on a much less widely reported item: the definition of "biochemical function" used by the authors.
This was more than a matter of semantics. Many press reports that resulted painted an entirely fictitious history of biology's past, along with a misleading picture of its present. As a result, the public that relied on those press reports now has a completely mistaken view of our current state of knowledge (this happens to be the exact opposite of what journalism is intended to accomplish). But you can't entirely blame the press in this case. They were egged on by the journals and university press offices that promoted the work—and, in some cases, the scientists themselves."
Relax guys .. there's a simpler person to blame ... the man on the street who pays for the science; reads about the science in news but don't get it in it's entirety
anyway it's a useful conversation starter in parties
wonder when someone will say to me "oh hey so do you research Junk DNA? why do you think it even exists? insert bait for an argument on (scientists are evil / intelligent design/ frankenstein GMO crops) "
Peace be unto thee ..