Babelfish does a reasonable job of rendering the text into understandable form, although it gives up part way through, but with dilligent cut-and-paste you can get what you need.

The article is a very general p0pular science treatment of the whole endeavour of going to Mars, including NASAS, ESA, the Mars society, and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all. These are not carefully distinguished in the article, and the authors probably aren't clear themselves.

In some ways, I don't think this matters to the general public - exactly who is doing what. It is sufficient (IMHO) that all sorts of things are happening and lots of organoisations are contributing and working more-or-less amicably side-by-side, if not actually together.

The physical arrangements on Devon island lead naturally to confusion, with both NASA and Mars society expeditions and some personnel in common. Add to this the difficulties of working in a foreign language, and perhaps a limited science training anyway, and then the confusion of the Journalists is understandable.

Matters of copyright violation and misuse of field equipment are more ethical or behavioural issues. Again, the language barrier and cultural differences may partially excuse these. ALso, you should consider whether the journalists were invited to experience the facility, or told explicitly what not to touch.

And as for stealing images off the ionternet and republishing them without attribution, we're all guilty of that sometimes, especially in the third world. The best thing to do is to contact the online publishers and request that either your image be acknowledged, or it be withdrawn.

(The explicit copyright notice may never have come to the attention of the authors - if you do a Google image search, you see all sorts of stuff out of context)

In summary, I think Keith is being a bit sensitive here. Surely it is better to be spreading the word about space exploration to a wide international audience?

Sure, the article could have been better, but it's better than none at all.