> See for example the New York Times and Quanta and Ars Technica and Nature
And the Quanta[1] (which is usually great) was probably the worst of the lot. The Nature paper had a title that probably caused the whole mess. The NYT (ironically since it is the most mainstream of the lot) did a pretty good job.
Let me quote the Quanta article:
> Physicists have purportedly created the first-ever wormhole, a kind of tunnel theorized in 1935 by Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen that leads from one place to another by passing into an extra dimension of space.
> The wormhole emerged like a hologram out of quantum bits of information, or “qubits,” stored in tiny superconducting circuits. By manipulating the qubits, the physicists then sent information through the wormhole, they reported today in the journal Nature.
If specialist science communication sources like Quanta are getting this so badly wrong then I don't think it is at all reasonable to blame mainstream media which acts an an aggregator from specialist sources.
That's not where I read about it.