Media reporting on scientific studies influences how adults who smoke perceive the risks of combusted cigarettes vs. non-combusting nicotine products. The U.S. FDA has indicated that adults who switch away from smoking cigarettes to FDA-authorized alternative nicotine products can reduce their health risks. Despite this guidance, a growing proportion of adults who smoke in both the US and England believe the opposite, that combusted cigarettes are safer. Cross-sectional studies represent an important source of information on the health impact of nicotine products, but can require evaluation of the precision of the study design and results to avoid inaccurate conclusions. An analysis of news coverage surrounding a recent cross-sectional observational study on dual-use highlights how misinterpretations of underlying data can originate and then spread. This case study identified key issues, including significant omissions and unsupported claims during press release development and subsequent media reporting. Understanding these problems can guide more precise designs of cross-sectional studies, and highlights the imperative for precise and accurate press release generation and media reporting.