I don't see where Drs. Kellum and Ericson have been misquoted. The
information attributed to them is accurate, is it not? Your argument is with
the reporter's context and angle, and her lack of a grasp of basic bee
biology. I think the scientists have set an exemplary example for the rest of
us: Be honest. Provide good information. Talking to a reporter is an
opportunity to teach and inform.
   It's better to try to disseminate accurate information than to be passive
and not try at all. If you are worried that a reporter is developing a story
angle that is skewed, overblown, inaccurate, etc. redirect the reporter to
other authoritative sources, such as biologists, entomologists, extension
agents and bee lab employees. Their published articles and research can
credibly buttress the accuracy of beekeeper comments. Find such people and
their research. Redirect reporters to them and their publications.
   And I understand there are professors and scientists on this list who
don't want to talk to reporters. Oh come on. If anybody is in a position to
set the record straight, it's you. The rest of us who deeply value honey bees
(economically, environmentally, spiritually) need you to have courage and be
accessible like Kellums and Ericson. One of the advantages of supporting
honey bee research is that it creates experts who have the authority to speak
truth to public ignorance. Just because a reporter's ignorance get's in the
way, doesn't mean you shouldn't try again.

   Here's a good reference for Africanzied bee stories. Justin Schmidt at the
Carl Hayden Bee Research Center examined the accuracy of the media's
portrayal of the Africanized honey bee "threat" in the American Southwest. He
surveyed data gathered from veterinarians in the Tucson area about over 5,000
animal attacks. Sadly, since the ARS site (www.nps.ars.usda.gov) has been
newly revised, it's still quite buggy and important information is not listed
(such as the date of the study), but from the information available the
results and the author's opinion are clear (quoted below).

I will quote at length.

Interpretive Summary: Africanized honey bees are often portrayed in news
media as viscous, dangerous creatures to be greatly feared. Attacks by
Africanized bees frequently receive front page coverage. From this, citizens
and business and professional people may conclude that Africanized bee
attacks are common and the bees pose serious risks. Such perceptions may not
be benign: public fear can restrict apiary locations and operations;
over-blown perceptions of the threats bees can cause increased insurance and
loan costs; and governments may restrict the beekeeping industry. The purpose
of this investigation was to determine the perceived versus actual risk posed
by Africanized bees. Veterinary clinics in Tucson, AZ, an area of 98 percent
Africanized bees, were surveyed to determine the risks posed by animal
attacks on the pet population. Data from 5000 attacks revealed surprising
information: 1) about two-thirds of all attackers were domestic dogs and cats
; 2) dogs were responsible for the majority of severe injuries and deaths of
pets; and 3) bee attacks ranked only seventh in attack frequency, below
snakes, coyotes and javelinas. The costs subsequent to Africanized bee
attacks also ranked below those of snakes, dogs and cats. Overall conclusions
are that actual risks to animals posed by Africanized bees are very minor
compared to the risks posed by dogs, cats, and wild animals. The false
perception that Africanized bees constitute a serious threat and risk is
incorrect, and unnecessary restrictions and costs imposed on the beekeeping
industry cannot (cut off here on the ARS web site)

 Technical Abstract: Africanized honey bees arrived in the U. S. in 1990.
Since their first appearance, much attention has been focused on these so
called "killer bees". While the initial excitement has decreased, questions
about their impact remain. Attacks on domestic animals have captured the
attention of the local media, causing concern among pet owners and
veterinarians to grow. Are attacks becoming more common with the increase in
the Africanized honey bee population, or are the attacks simply drawing
excessive attention due to their dramatic nature? To answer these and related
questions, veterinary clinics/hospitals in and around Tucson were surveyed. A
questionnaire was designed to elicit information about the number and type of
 animal attacks that veterinarians see most frequently. The data derived from
over 5000 animal attacks provide the first record of the true extent and
severity of bee attacks relative to attacks by other animals.
 The animals responsible for the greatest number of attacks are cats and
dogs. Dog attacks led to the most severe injuries, resulting in the majority
of pet deaths. Snakes follow a distant third place in frequency. Honey  bee
attacks were only seventh in terms of attack frequency, and produced no
permanent injuries and few deaths among the pet population. Perhaps the most
remarkable finding is the relationship vis-a-vis perception and reality held
by the public; that is, bee attack frequency and severity are much less than
perceived.