One difference between most journalists and yourself is that you never have to issue a retraction. This isn't because you're correct all the time, it's either because 1) you deal with public figures, or 2) you simply remove the incorrect information from your website and then pretend that it never existed.

But I imagine that after someone has shown up on your doorstep with inviting you to court for either 1) slander or 2) material damages due to inacurate reporting, such as a stock loss or damage to a company's business or good name, you'll figure it out.

The correct adjectives to describe me are horny, because some idiots are taking up time I could be using to get laid, angry, because some idiots are taking up time I could be drinking, and tired, simply because some idiots are idiots.

Another adjective to describe me is envious, as you have an easy job - NASA will never run out of disgruntled employees, scientists, and "space enthusiasts", and all you have to do is wait for your copy to come in. Me,
there's a major problem with small impactors hitting the Earth and killing very large numbers of people, a major problem which few are aware of, most try to ignore, and which has a budget of nearly $0.00.

Not once have I ever seen NASA Watch report on NASA's abysmal funding of the US NEO effort, an item which nearly every professional space journalist has written at least one piece on.

NASA Watch, not once.

EP
WATCH Watch