There is one thing that always annoys me as of late, once I figured it out, that reporters always represent {A} by {B} and over-sensationalize {B} to the point where I cannot recognize it as normal or I see {A} through a lens unbefitting of it.
Take for example the following line: Google X head Astro Teller embraces failure. Sometimes literally: In group meetings, he has been known to give hugs to people who admit mistakes or defeat. Here embracing failure is over-sensationalized, I think, when in the end it is only a hacker's attempt at trial-and-failure. And then for some reporter to come and say, because they are trying to find gems in the story, that hackers embrace failure sounds just plain old gibberish.
Take for example the following line: Google X head Astro Teller embraces failure. Sometimes literally: In group meetings, he has been known to give hugs to people who admit mistakes or defeat. Here embracing failure is over-sensationalized, I think, when in the end it is only a hacker's attempt at trial-and-failure. And then for some reporter to come and say, because they are trying to find gems in the story, that hackers embrace failure sounds just plain old gibberish.