The original post doesn't appear to misuse the technical term holographic. If a journalist twists their story into "reality is virtual" or "we might live in the matrix" then they would be reporting their sensationalist (perhaps intentional) misunderstanding, and this guy would be right. But I don't see how it applies to this article. It could be better explained, but it doesn't completely misrepresent the science. The holographic principle is legit physics.

Did you post this for the comments that explain the difference between the holographic principle and Star Trek?