If BBC hadn't editorialized, most of us likely wouldn't have clicked it. The paper is interesting but more interesting when you read it through the lens of "does this validate the health benefits of bird-watching?" which is a perspective BBC provided
That's good science journalism imo
Maybe naive but I tend to think there’s a way to attract people’s attention to good science without over-claiming. The downside of too much editorializing is that it leads some people (eg the comment I first replied to) to think the science itself must be as shallow as the headline suggests, which does everyone a disservice. In this article’s case, using words like “may” or “suggests” could have gone a long way.