Cochrane does systematic research; they take a class of researches, and "summarize" [very inappropriate term] them.
I don't think that this lends itself very well to the publishing process of research in general (meant as a stream of single researches).
Cochrane is one of the foundations of the book Bad science, which you would probably find interesting (assuming you're interested in the subject).
When it comes to the media, the situation is complex, because the interests of the media (and the institutions and so on) can be many, and research quality can be not the only one.
If on a scale from 0 to 10 of interest in quality, the Cochrane institution is a (just to say) 10, the Daily Mail would be a -5, since sensationalized garbage is much more productive for them than boring, low-key, truthful research.
[Of course, I don't mean that Daily mail is certainly not the reference or the standard.]
I don't think that this lends itself very well to the publishing process of research in general (meant as a stream of single researches).
Cochrane is one of the foundations of the book Bad science, which you would probably find interesting (assuming you're interested in the subject).
When it comes to the media, the situation is complex, because the interests of the media (and the institutions and so on) can be many, and research quality can be not the only one.
If on a scale from 0 to 10 of interest in quality, the Cochrane institution is a (just to say) 10, the Daily Mail would be a -5, since sensationalized garbage is much more productive for them than boring, low-key, truthful research.
[Of course, I don't mean that Daily mail is certainly not the reference or the standard.]