Firstly, the one who makes the logical fallacy inference that this implies all or most dramatic hypotheses are true is ... You. Not the author of the article. The author of the article is only talking about one specific theory. If I tell you a story about a chicken crossing the road, I'm not obligated to tell you about all the chickens who don't cross any roads.
Second, there are plenty of examples of established theories that started this way, and so it is important that scientists consider controversial hypotheses with an open mind. Speaking in any context, it's very easy to dismiss evidence that contradicts your views prematurely. It's sort of a defense mechanism we all do. It's important to recognize such a bias and be willing to acknowledge where your own theory could fall short when you see it.
In other news, Local Man Didn't Win Lottery
(1) “Someone hypothesizing a very dramatic theory with weak evidence was considered wrong by most colleagues but later vindicated why strong evidence emerged”. (No mention of thousands of other dramatic hypotheses that turned out wrong.)
(2) “You may have heard in unsophisticated popularization that [philosophical claim ultimately hinging on semantic distinction] was false, but really it’s true [assuming my preferred semantics]”.
Aren't we all tired of this yet? Are science journalists embarrassed by this stuff?