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.