Here's the catch: all of these quotes are from the interviewer. Jordan has a lot of really nuanced claims here, but it's clear that the interviewer has an agenda of his own.
Yes, this is one of the more shameful examples of the reporter attempting to shove words down the interviewee's mouth, and completely misrepresenting the results.
Take a look at the first sentence:
"The overeager adoption of big data is likely to result in catastrophes of analysis comparable to a national epidemic of collapsing bridges"
Then read the interview. At no point does Jordan indicate that the misanalysis of big data will cause a catastrophe comparable to the epidemic of collapsing bridges. Never. What he does (and apparently the reporter is either too stupid or too dishonest to represent), is provide an analogy between building a bridge without scientific principles and not performing proper statistical analysis on big data.
He never makes a comparison between the outcomes of these two events. He basically says: if you build a bridge without scientific principles, it will fall down. If you are not careful in your analysis of big data, your results will be wrong.
The whole article goes on in a very similar manner. Science reporters used to have something called "journalistic integrity". Here we get a click-bait article where a "reporter" has predetermined a topic that will gain lots of hits and is desperately trying to fit the interviewees words into his agenda.
Shameful.