Author Topic: Griffin, The Obama Transition Team, and "sources" at the Orlando Sentinel  (Read 75943 times)

Offline Chris Bergin

Ed, we moved the TO conversation here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15218.msg343792#msg343792

And let's not bundle the media as a single entity. We're media, and your post is based on what this site reported.
 
« Last Edit: 12/12/2008 10:27 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
Ed, we moved the TO conversation here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15218.msg343792#msg343792

And 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

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
I was writing in the context of discussing the Orlando Sentinel's recent tabloid-style space reporting.

There was a time around the mid-1990s (95-00) when both Florida Today and the Orlando Sentinel were two of the most respected media sources for space information.  Florida Today, and their online site Space Online, had the best day to day coverage of shuttle and Cape issues.  From what I remember, the Sentinel covered the topic less, but tended to get bigger scoops.  Both publications' reporters were regulars at shuttle news conferences and their names were well known in the space community.

Florida Today's leadership made a conscious decision to stop doing space coverage and to focus more on local sports (like high schools), and then Space Online was bought and shut down by Space.com, which was a real travesty.  I dunno what happened to the Sentinel.  But we lost a lot when these publications gave up on the topic.

Although I have a lot of problems with how journalists do their jobs, I really dislike bloggers who make a big deal out of hating the "mainstream media" and wishing for its demise.  They fail to understand that only a strong media entity with the money to pay reporters to go places and talk to people will ensure that we get real information.  (Note that last year The Washington Post exposed the deplorable conditions at Walter Reed military hospital and as a result two generals and the secretary of the Army were fired.  The Post won a Pulitzer for these stories, but more importantly, the lives of wounded veterans were improved.  The MSM serves an important function.)  We need newspapers; they serve a vital function at exposing problems and holding government accountable.

That said, it's pretty sickening when "reporters" (I use the term loosely, thus the quotes) abandon even basic rules of good journalism.  Those rules include things like not basing a story entirely on anonymous sources--unless the story is important enough to warrant it (i.e. torturing prisoners, violating civil rights)--and calling the focus of a story for comment.  The parts of the Sentinel piece that I'm personally familiar with are exaggerated, and it is clear that the reporter is pretty ignorant of a lot of things he wrote about and has interpreted common actions as somehow nefarious.  Hearsay and innuendo, which the reporter's journalism professors would have failed him on.  What's equally bad are all the other articles that provided no additional data, but only repeated badly-sourced information; reporters are supposed to find their own sources, not simply rewrite somebody else's garbage and assume that it's true.  Theft may be the sincerest form of flattery, but it's also lazy.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2008 04:00 am by Blackstar »

Offline Chris Bergin

Ed, we moved the TO conversation here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=15218.msg343792#msg343792

And 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

Sorry Ed, understood.

And that is a superb post by Blackstar - one of the best I've seen on this forum.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
Just a quick notes on the interpretation and 'spin' being put on this story by various news agencies. 

Here in the UK, the left-wing 'Independent' is interpreting this as meaning that President-Elect Obama is thinking of ending the manned spaceflight program.  In a story that, frankly, exposes a lot of ignorance on their science desk about the issues, the Ares-I is defined as a 'next generation' spacecraft and states that cancellation of that LV would automatically mean the cancellation of the manned space program after Shuttle retirement as well as the abandonment of any attempt to return to the Moon.

Who knows? They might be right but I feel that this is really the worst-case scenario interpretation.
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
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.

Incorrect on  both accounts.  As usual.

Constellation can reprogram its own money to cover the delays, even past September.  No need to go to congress.  Ares I-X is not like a planetary mission which is one launch.  Ares I-X is part of a large program.

The big cancellation risk is Ares itself.  If Ares exists, there will be a I-Y.  No I-Y, no Ares I.

« Last Edit: 12/13/2008 01:32 pm by Jim »

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
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

Offline KEdward5

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 840
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 57
  • Likes Given: 116
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

But you are anti-Ares so this sort of shoddy reporting suits you. That is why we are discussing it, as it's likely an inaccurate article, at best overblown, again, from a writer who has a track record of overblowing issues as part of his obsession with bringing down Griffin and Ares.

Your post seems to appear you "assume" the article is true, and seem upset people dare question it's accuracy. Where's your insight into this past your obvious bias against? And are you calling Griffin a liar with his release that it's not true? What position are you in to call him a liar? Where are your facts to claim this?

It does you no favors to appear shocked this article deserves to be made accountable, when you're working off a "OMG I was so right" position because it suits your anti-Ares beliefs.

What's the bet that the "source" of the article was a Direct fan? Any Direct people at that dinner?

Offline kraisee

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10560
  • Liked: 807
  • Likes Given: 40
What's the bet that the "source" of the article was a Direct fan? Any Direct people at that dinner?

We have absolutely no involvement in this at all.   We have had no input to this article, or its follow-ups and I do not believe any of our team ever attended the event in question.   This article came as quite a surprise to us.

While we certainly have a long list of complaints with Griffin, we have decided, as a group, that it would be far better for us if we stay completely out of this situation.   I will thank you not to attempt to drag us in.

I must also point out that you are vociferously complaining about unsupportable false claims being thrown around.   Yet you just made one yourself in this regard.   You are lashing out in an unjustified manner and I would therefore, respectfully, request an apology and a retraction of your comment please.

Ross.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2008 03:14 pm by kraisee »
"The meek shall inherit the Earth -- the rest of us will go to the stars"
-Robert A. Heinlein

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
No need to get personal. Please read my post again. I assume you are pro Ares.

Not this reporter is bringing down Griffin and Ares, they both do it themself by their lack of connection with reality, politically and technically.

Analyst

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
Quote from: KEdward5
What's the bet that the "source" of the article was a Direct fan? Any Direct people at that dinner?

It's always DIRECT amazing peoples, isn't it? Everyone else in their sane minds realize how elegant and flawless the "1.5 launch" architecture is, right and see absolutely no reason to be against it?

Wow, Ares I must be the best thing since sliced bread...

Offline Chris Bergin

It's getting personal. Keep it calm and respectful please.

I would also add that media accountability is one of the most important elements of this thread - given the article's content is on shaky ground, has been denied (and without any form of proof to counter the denial) and the aforementioned track record.

Also, please do not post links to other sites that have the same article rehashed, unless they add new information. None so far have, they are all rehashes, so no need to link "nothing new" on this thread.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2008 04:21 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Analyst

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3337
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 20
Yes, but media acountability 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

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Yes, but media acountability is not the reason for the problems behind: be it Griffin, Ares, CxP or whatever.

There are plenty of threads all over this site fighting this argument.  Just because you care about that issue a lot does not mean that everybody does, and it does not mean that this thread has to be about that topic.  You can find plenty of discussion of your passion elsewhere.

As for the comment about a "Direct supporter" being the source, I find that rather funny.  This was a book signing party in Washington, DC filled mostly with policy and history types.  I was there because I used to work on these books, but I don't see any point in really discussing any of this.  People are too enslaved to their personal biases to be objective, rational, or, alas, civil.

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
The story plays into most of the established memes about NASA and it's chief agents, so it's easy for the Sentinal and the follow-up coverage to blow it out of proportion. It gets the extra attention because of the focus on Obama's "transition intentions."

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.

Negative press is not always negative for NASA. I can't say for sure about this one, yet.

Offline Chris Bergin

This is a good conversation, as this needs to be aired. Let's see if I can address some of it from my position as a journalist.

Yes, but media accountability is not the reason for the problems behind: be it Griffin, Ares, CxP or whatever.


But I would counter by saying this thread is specific to the reports linked within the thread, not a general state of Constellation thread. That said, the media should be accountable when it comes to accurately reporting the state of Constellation, both positive and negative, and be able to back up its content.

I'm not blowing my own trumpet here, but it's a huge deal when you publish an article, especially on issues. If you get it wrong, you lose the trust of your readership and your track record is dirt.

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.

We've done more than our fair share of negative reporting on Constellation, but we are a "issue to solution" style of reporting, to follow the engineering process.

The ECO sensors/LH2 feedthrough issue is a good example. From the STS-122 issue to the solution I wrote 26 articles. The initial problem could be deemed negative reporting, because it was a big issue, but the process to the solution is a good example of NASA, USA, Boeing, Lockheed (and anyone else involved) engineering excellence. Maybe we'll look back at Thrust Oscillation in the same light in the years to come, as we're following the process, from the issue (negative) and just recently some updated information the solutions (positive), as much as there's some way to go with the mitigation.

So long as you report the facts (negative and positive) without opinion or agenda, then you're doing the job of a reporter, because you are reporting status. When you start reporting content on the basis of a source, you run the risk that the source may have opinion and an agenda of their own, which then filters through into your content - that's dangerous.

Quote

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

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. Not some attendee of a dinner. But yes, I understand the reason for not naming the person, they may not have wanted to be named, and you have to respect that.

The problem is that even if this incident happened, by the time the source has recalled the conversation, it's going to be convoluted several times over by the time it makes print, lessening the accuracy. You can't base an entire article on such information and expect people to take it as gospel.

If someone had recorded the conversation, and passed on the recording, for it them to be quoted via "a source" that might be different - even though context would still be potentially diluted.

What's really 'upset' me has been the way countless other sites have taken this article, rehashed it without additional facts or even their own sources (and note that's important, no one else has come forward, no one else can verify the incident), and have even convoluted it further.

This isn't a story about some celebrity, this is about the head of NASA, and I can assure you most of the media reporting on this do not care one bit about any fallout it may have on NASA, they just want a headline to force-feed Joe Public, because, sadly, Joe Public will click on that story (supply and demand), and this sort of story sells far better than STS-126's achievements - that's just the nature of our society today.

Again, I'm very lucky to have a specific audience for the articles I write, and I don't have an editor slapping me over the back of the head to go find some flashy scandal. And I have been there, I do know what it's like, I've worked for a large media organization and there's a lot of pressure, but it doesn't mean it's right, and it sure as hell doesn't mean it's accurate.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline MarkWhittington

  • Member
  • Member
  • Posts: 64
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Chris, excellent post.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

This is not true.  NASA is not carved out of the Constitution.  It operates like every other Executive Branch agency.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692

{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.



That's why I love this site, and continue to support it.
Great write-up Chris.

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
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.

Just to add a little more to this, responsible media outlets usually have rules regarding anonymous sources.  The best example was the Washington Post during Watergate (go read the book).  Generally one of these rules is that the anonymous information has to be important/newsworthy.  Another rule is that the source has to be corroborated (in other words, a single source is insufficient, you have to have two or more).  And usually another rule is that the reporter's editor has to know the name of the source.  I have doubts that any of these rules were followed for this article.

There are other journalistic rules as well.  For instance, the subject of a story is supposed to be given the opportunity to comment.  Unless I missed it, if you look at the Orlando Sentinel article again, at no point does it indicate that the reporter actually called Griffin to ask if the story was true (maybe because the reporter was not interested in accuracy?).

This was pretty sloppy journalism, regardless of the facts of the story.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1