I agree - in this case, the Google Translate translation is very likely to be correct without problems. But I see two problems anyway:
1. This is the kind of thing where if there is a problem, it can easily be a huge problem. One of the simplest translation mistakes you can make, for example, is to come up with exactly the opposite meaning of what the original said.
2. Smithsonian Magazine is literally adding a tag to their article that says we do not stand by our reporting. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false; they don't know and they don't care. If it's false, that is, according to them, Google's problem, not theirs. This cannot meet even the bare minimum standard of acceptable journalism.
1. This is the kind of thing where if there is a problem, it can easily be a huge problem. One of the simplest translation mistakes you can make, for example, is to come up with exactly the opposite meaning of what the original said.
2. Smithsonian Magazine is literally adding a tag to their article that says we do not stand by our reporting. Maybe it's true, maybe it's false; they don't know and they don't care. If it's false, that is, according to them, Google's problem, not theirs. This cannot meet even the bare minimum standard of acceptable journalism.