That selective reporting could make a casual reader think his assessment is being offered against-financial-interest. "Pay for college, not the MOOCs like I've taught!"
But quite to the contrary, suggesting people spend $61K/year on a prestigious university is strongly aligned with Ariely's unmentioned (although easy to find and well-known) professional affiliations and paychecks.
I don't think this disqualifies his analysis – he's got obvious expertise as both as a MOOC teacher and part of the university system, and I've enjoyed his writing and research. But it's definitely relevant, when it's left out of the story/headline. When delivering a pro-high-tuition-college message, in addition to whatever other insight he brings, he's also a pitchman for the institutions that employ him.
Or for comparison, if someone reported, "popular author reports that Apple iOS devices are definitely worth the price premium", wouldn't the fact that the author also worked for Apple be a relevant thing to know?