Electron microscope fast enough to track electrons - or small media stretch?

 

Ummm....I've recently used a couple of the late Stephen Hawking's books as examples of effective scientific communications. As someone who "owns" the digital rights to two of his books -  "A brief history of time" and "A much more brief history of time for a somewhat slower listening audience" I found both frustating. My brain chemistry or my background or something made a lot of the book really hard to follow. Maybe I could follow some of the concepts in the latter if I had some schematics or a coloring book or something? Hopefully? I don't know.

But something I thought I had down about physics in general was the whole "you can't observe an electron" thing. 

This article is making the popsci circuit this week --

And either I didn't get the concept -or - the popsci people missed something. As someone who used an old electron microscope in a core a long time ago to take some pretty pictures of individual bacterial spores sliced down the middle (if you're bored, proof is here, Figure 3B was stylized by a very tolerant tattoo artist and takes up my whole right upper arm - glycopeptides were tough as hell to analyze on a QTrap) and has literally zero idea how fast an electron microscope is, a faster one sounds better! 

But the popsci narrative seems to have landed on the assumption that this thing can freeze frame capture an electron in place

Which - again - as someone who couldn't follow a popsci physics book while driving on I-695 doesn't seem to be exactly what the paper itself concludes (take this with a pound of salt, or other, I don't know what I'm talking about metaphors/analogies/folk sayings, but.....)

Attoseconds sounds darned fast, though!