Versions of articles can change. About 15 years ago the New York Times was doing an article about some very big changes happening in the area of scientific research I do. They talked to another professor and I while they met us in our labs. They also had a photographer along who took a number of pictures. One they took was of me holding up a small component of an instrument and looking at it. The component I was looking at went inside a half million dollar or so instrument with lasers, l computers and things which does the analysis on the part I was holding up.

A short time later I got an email from a professor I know at Johns Hopkins Med School saying he had to idea I had such capabilities. He sent the link to the online version of the article that just came out the night before the print version and the caption of the photo basically said I was doing the analysis by looking at the part I was holding up in the picture, thus replacing the rather sophisticated instrument. It didn’t make me look bad, but was wildly wrong. People must have told them because by the time print versions came out near us the caption was fixed. I have no idea if there were print versions with the erroneous caption floating around.

I believe that fake quote from me could have been a hat triggered them taking my pass away. It looked as if I was rubbing it in their faces .

I've been quoted by journalists twice.

The first time, what I actually said was sliced and diced into something I didn't actually say, but I agreed with the sentiment more or less, so I guess it was ok. The second time it was as if the journo took every third word I said and stitched together a frankenquote that was the opposite of what I was trying to say.

I've vowed not to talk to reporters any more...

I too am in a scientific field. There was a public announcement about the research we were doing, and the media grabbed the story and hyped it in a way not justified by our findings. I, unfortunately, agreed to do an interview with the science reporter for a major newspaper, and it was obvious from their questions that they knew nothing about the scientific method. When I later read the article, I was shocked by the ridiculous statements that were attributed to me in quotations. The gist of the quoted statements was the exact opposite of what I was saying. I complained to the editor but they did nothing because I didn't record the interview. For years, I was hounded by the stupid statements that I'd supposedly made. Years later, a reporter for the same paper came up to me a conference and introduced herself saying, "I understand that you are one of the foremost experts on ..... in the world, could you give me a short interview?" I replied, "I'm sorry but I don't talk to members of the media", whereupon she flew into a rage while I ignored her protestations and calmly walked away.

Zombie - I am in healthcare and have had similar experiences and see the same all of the time. I also dont talk to the media anymore and it is impressive on some sites when people comment about articles in which I am an expert on how wrong/inaccurate the details are. And then we wonder why we are in the world that we live in. While I think there are a variety of motivations and not always bad - but rewording or summarizing complex medical and/or scientific topics for the readers might or often distort the key details - and such errors only get magnified and result in making bad decisions based upon bad data... I see it all the time

Science reporters, indeed all reporters, should be forced to read The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan. Perhaps then, they would be more skeptical and less hyperbolic in making sweeping claims and generalizations.

I'm confused. You purchased a lifetime pass on UA. You presumably did not purchase a lifetime pass on UA plus a promise not to say mean things about the company. Are you saying UA took away your pass because you called the company suckers (or were misquoted in saying so)? If so, that seems egregiously wrong.

My impression is they didn't take the pass because he was perceived to have said something unflattering to UA. UA took the perceived slight as motivation to find some way he violated the rules of the pass as a reason to revoke it.

Your presumption is incorrect. Read more of the thread, and you will find that the lifetime pass purchase agreement absolutely did include a promise by the purchaser regarding public statements relating to the pass.

I’m going to wait for the movie—it will clear everything up!

Same here. Gell-mann amnesia effect applies to everything I read because of that.

Really terrible what the WaPo did to Tom here. Kirby's mocking may be even worse. It's all quite sad.

I looked at the thread (not all of it, it's long!) but didn't see a post by Tom confirming the pass agreement "include(d) a promise by the purchaser regarding public statements relating to the pass." it was my impression the event which caused UA to ground Tom was him allegedly dissing UA, which Tom denies. Are you saying Tom was prohibited from making a public statement relating to the pass, whether positive or negative? It's concerning UA would punish a customer for his statements, assuming Tom's statements were truthful.

Here ya' go:

https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/37463671-post3046.html

I recently had my niece ask for advice about a story she read from a major news org. I told her that the story was factually wrong and then walked her through reasons why. She is a smart, with a hard science degree, but I believe that those who get their news from feeds on their phones tend to trust what they read. I think that I am making some progress with her in getting her to be more skeptical.

Greatest gift my parents ever gave me was an education that included critical thinking skills. The amount of garbage being propagated now is staggering.

I think we all have read media stories related to our area of expertise that are incredibly inaccurate. Goes to follow that reporting done in other areas should be viewed in the same light.