A lot of it is due to the hyperbolic way the press interpret what public health research is all about. Population statistics don't tell you anything about an individuals health. All they do is tell you what level of behaviour X has a statistically significant effect on health outcome Y, measured across a large number of people.

If Public Health England do a meta-analysis and find that drinking more than 14 units a week or more than 6 units in a single session on a regular basis has a negative impact on health, it's their remit to share that information, it's objectively in the public interest to do so. But when they do, they're inevitably labelled killjoys. Imagine the reaction if they found those negative impacts and chose not to share them - they'd be accused of conspiracy.

I do still have the occasional complaint about how they present these findings and the language they use. 'Binge' isn't really a helpful term for example as most people's interpretation of that word is different to how it's used in this context. Generally though, if you read the actual papers they do qualify all this stuff, but that aspect is never reported on.