modern media is incredibly susceptible to manipulation
I have occasional involvement with modern media (aviation related and otherwise). My view is that very few in the industry, including those who specialise in a particular field, have much understanding of any technical detail or feel for whether or not an interviewee is telling the truth or attempting to manipulate. All the writer is interested in is whether they can take anything away from it and produce an article of a pre-ordained word count and if there's anything the slightest bit provocative or sensational, all the better. The press (and other media) used to be a mechanism for communicating news and selling advertising whereas today it's nothing more than an inexpensive marketing tool for those seeking greater exposure outside of their normal coverage. Most people who read about this sort of thing couldn't care less, 'today's news, tomorrows fish and chip paper' etc., and on the whole, I'd say most writers couldn't care either. There's practically never any follow up to 'a story' or published item and frankly I suspect little appetite for it and to a certain extent, that has worked in the favour of this individual - most of what you read about her is 'new' i.e. not reporting but simply regurgitating what is fed to the press by her marketing agency/people/person. Did the Times follow up the story I believe they published concerning the LAA and removal of the Bill Woodham Trophy with a bit of insightful investigative journalism? No, of course not, there was always going to be something more interesting to write about, hence her story about being a victim of prejudice from male pilots in September. I'd be very surprised if the writer approached her for that first. Besides, she thinks she's establishment doesn't she? Different rules and all that.