Ed, we moved the TO conversation here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15218.msg343792#msg343792And let's not bundle the media as a single entity. We're media, and your post is based on what this site reported.
I was writing in the context of discussing the Orlando Sentinel's recent tabloid-style space reporting.
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/12/2008 10:15 pmEd, we moved the TO conversation here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15218.msg343792#msg343792And let's not bundle the media as a single entity. We're media, and your post is based on what this site reported. Absolutely. I was writing in the context of discussing the Orlando Sentinel's recent tabloid-style space reporting. - Ed Kyle
The danger increases when the launch is delayed past the start of the new financial year in September because the Administrator has to apply to Congress for extra money.The big cancellation risk is Ares-I-Y, since that is not protected by the need for a firework display in 2009.
I am the first who critizises the press. But this is not the point here. The point is the architecture, CxP, Ares, Orion etc. And NASA management and behavior.NASA has put itself, under Griffin, into a very bad position, politically. This is a fact and the reason for many problems, the reason for this very article. The press may take more out of it, may push small problems into big ones etc. They more often than not won't even know about others. But they are only a catalyst. They - with all their shortcomings - are not the base of the problem. They don't invent problems and shortcomings at NASA.Why are we even discussing this? Reminds me of the "stupid press" and "stupid questions by ..." threads during Shuttle missions and press conferences. We can lament this, but welcome to the real world. NASA has to accept this.Btw. NASA quite often uses the press very effectively (Mars landings, John Glenn ...). So this a a two sided sword too.Analyst
What's the bet that the "source" of the article was a Direct fan? Any Direct people at that dinner?
Yes, but media acountability is not the reason for the problems behind: be it Griffin, Ares, CxP or whatever.
Yes, but media accountability is not the reason for the problems behind: be it Griffin, Ares, CxP or whatever.
As for proof / naming sources: It is not always possible to name your sources, this does not mean a story is untrue (nor does it mean it is true). Same is true for denial, this too does not mean a story is untrue (or true). Same for the track record.Would this be the first story about Griffin handeling dissent, his behavior or about CxP problems I would think different about it.Analyst
It's also one of the few things Obama has near dictatorial control over, if he chooses to wield it. I suppose congress could legislate against him, but the President sets the agenda, and the Administrator carries it out. There are few departments of the government that can be steered that directly. This adds drama for the space geeks and relevance to the general audience.
{snip}I'm lucky, as I write up official documentation because that's a solid base to start with. After I've drafted up the article, it goes off to actual engineers for a read over to correct any errors of context/representation, and even then I might get an e-mail from some other engineers asking to correct a line. That's how hard it is to report this subject, so imagine how shaky it is to base an article off what is out of context (because only the two people noted in the article know the context of the conversation) "source(s)" - which is second hand at least, information.
Yes, you can't always name your sources in news articles, but it's an oft-used excuse for inaccurate reporting, unless its - for example - quoting a military source etc. Which you would not name in public for national security reasons/lack of authorization for them to be named on record.