Yep....don't even have to be in the field, once you really begin to understand a field even as a layman, the repeated errors in science reporting are just as obvious.
Anyway, I noticed that people noticed the egregious NYT blunder regarding "radiocarbon" dating, but never actually said what it was.
For the benefit of those who may not know, it's actually a common Creationist belief that ALL dating of old objects is "radiocarbon" dating; actually it's only used for very recent, biological items....I believe it goes back only 50,000 years....will have to look that up.
When rocks billions of years old are dated a variety of other techniques are used such as argon-argon, etc.
50,000 years is about tops for C-14 or radiocarbon dating. Ties in to the half-life. Other elements have a longer half-life.