If I was an author in the New York Times, my goal in a popular science article would always be first and foremost to inform my readers and tell them the absolute truth about what is written in a scientific journal. I think it is most important to put the truth ahead of any sort of inaccurate clickbait headline which will just cause more people to read the article but give them inaccurate information. One thing I would do is make sure that all relevant information in the article is mentioned, maybe leaving out certain technical details but not anything which affects the conclusions of the research or experiments. I would talk about possible future implications of the research but phrase it in a way so that the readers can clearly differentiate what is known for sure from the research and what may be possible in the future due to this research. If possible, such as in the ketamine depression article written by Vox which I presented on, I would have some anecdotal interview with a person who underwent such a trial and how they were affected, getting both someone who was treated effectively and someone who was not if possible, in order to have both sides, while including statistics on the rate of effectiveness. This way people will be more able to relate to the research and how it could effect them.