The point of having PR-people in this case was not to ensure that the science was communicated in a clear way. It was rather to make sure that scientific findings that conflicted with government policies was never communicated to the press at all.

I'd rather the reporter heard it from someone who truly understood the science.

You seem to rather delusionally believe that a modern reporter would know the difference.

I'm not following. The difference between what?

Modern science reporters have repeatedly shown themselves incapable of recognizing good science from bad science, so why would they start now and be able to recognize good scientific sources from PR-seeking frauds?