This problem is even worse in academia. If you write a paper that goes against what the median referee in your field believes, good luck getting it published. https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1354135053262057473

In academia, you are basically shoe-horned from day into writing least common denominator takes.

Several strategies to be successful include surprising results which nevertheless cater to the pre-conceived biases of your median referee, like this: https://academic.oup.com/restud/article-abstract/83/1/87/2461318?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Or, boring takes which no one disagrees with, like "trade costs matter", using this super sophisticated approach.

The last two trade economists to win the John Bates Clark, to my knowledge, have written maybe two words about the China trade shock.