I have been interviewed twice for articles in Wired and once for Chemical and Engineering News. I was a first hand observer of an event reported in the Portland

I have been interviewed twice for articles in Wired and once for Chemical and Engineering News. I was a first hand observer of an event reported in the Portland Oregonian when I was in high school. I was not misquoted or otherwise misrepresented in the first three cases. In all of these cases I found the reporting to be accurate. I do notice mistakes when news publications write about topics relevant to my expertise. But these mistakes often (though not always) would not change the conclusions of the article when corrected. A lot of the mistakes I notice are elementary ones like confusing units of energy and power. They indicate that the writer lacks a subject matter background but they don't invalidate the whole article. When an article says "The new wind farm will generate 180,000 megawatts per year, enough to supply 10,000 Texas households" it's clear enough that "180,000 megawatt hours per year" is what should have been written. I know that other people have different experiences, where they find that their first hand knowledge of events has been completely twisted by news reporting. Or where their subject of expertise is reported incorrectly in mainstream publications all the time, not only in details but in the major conclusions. I wonder if these howlers are prevalent in online discussions of news accuracy simply because the howlers make for more vivid memories that will spur people to share their experiences in comments.