I've seen similar myself, people in the media or in politics, top-sheeting a briefing, getting things wrong, or grabbing an irrelevant side issue and running with it out of context in completely the wrong direction, usually to fit a narrative. But speaking as if they're the utmost authority on it.Yes I need to relax a little now as I left my job as Quality Manager for Asahi only last week but it does raise a serious question for me. I used to be an aircraft engineer and when there was an incident they'd put an expert on TV to explain how it happened. Too often they spoke bollocks. The same could be said of these idiots talking about beer/wine. They have a very limited knowledge about what they're talking about, often some little snippet given them by a true expert.
My issue is these people are often informing the public for the first time and influencing their understanding. While drink isn't anywhere near as important as aircraft crashes it is still misinformation. Just because I'm so sceptical of what I hear about subjects I'm well qualified in it makes me believe most of what we're fed on media is also seriously flawed.
Quite depressing really when those things become accepted truths and you see others repeating them, and yes, makes you sceptical about what they say elsewhere too.
Hope I wasn't doing that. I've never distilled gin myself and I'm not an expert in the process, only digging into it as an interested consumer deciding what to drink - so sorry if anything I've said is wrong! I have extensively "researched" the end product though
Incidentally, what do you think of Air Crash Investigation? I've assumed as their talking heads are from NTSB etc, and it's usually some years after the event, that they actually know the investigation itself even if they're styling it a bit for a TV audience - but with your experience, do they?