Title: “Comparing Science Reporting: A Critical Analysis of a Secondary Article from Science Daily and the Original Peer-Reviewed Paper by Savic & Lindstrom”

Compare and contrast the secondary article from Science Daily with the original peer-reviewed paper by Savic & Lindstrom.
Did the science writer capture the crucial aspects of the paper correctly and make them understandable for a more general audience? Are there any important aspects or interpretations presented in the primary research article that are missing from the secondary article?
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080617151845.htm
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0801566105