Author Topic: Griffin, The Obama Transition Team, and "sources" at the Orlando Sentinel  (Read 75932 times)

Offline wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
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.

Another good example is the reporter that was jailed for not revealing her source in the Valery Plame debacle.  That reporter got screwed but she went to jail to protect a source.  She deserves all the awards and cudo's possible.  Few people would do that for their jobs.

When's it's sloppy journalism then it gets very close to tabloid material.  Sadly much of what is now called news is talboid or opinion articles or discussions.  It's tragic.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

Offline Antares

  • ABO^2
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5181
  • Done arguing with amateurs
  • Liked: 371
  • Likes Given: 228
Given that one of the first things a sharp young engineer has to learn is that they will be constantly second-guessed, that pathological second-guessing is part of mission assurance; I seriously wonder about Griffin's pedigree.  Any engineer or engineering manager worth his salt should welcome second-guessing and have ready responses if his plan is sound.  It's part of the job and ensures the right answers.  He should be able to handle this, or he should go back to being a GS-12.

As for Griffin intimidating ESAS dissenters, I've heard that from multiple independent sources with various badge colors, these people themselves having jobs and promotions threatened.  Sufficient proof for me.

Quote
Shall we give them Wayne Hale's number?

Wayne is like a good college coach.  He's really positive and effective around the alumni and a press conference microphone.  In the locker room or a closed practice, plug the kids' ears and get the valium.  But, actually, I like this type of attitude.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2008 10:19 pm by Antares »
If I like something on NSF, it's probably because I know it to be accurate.  Every once in a while, it's just something I agree with.  Facts generally receive the former.

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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.

Another good example is the reporter that was jailed for not revealing her source in the Valery Plame debacle.  That reporter got screwed but she went to jail to protect a source.  She deserves all the awards and cudo's possible.  Few people would do that for their jobs.

When's it's sloppy journalism then it gets very close to tabloid material.  Sadly much of what is now called news is talboid or opinion articles or discussions.  It's tragic.

If you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.

Offline Stowbridge

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 426
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Very impressive post Chris. As a former journalist I can see that in your writing and especially on accountability by being fully available to your readership on the forum, which is rare.
Veteran space reporter.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4

If you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.

Who discredited her and how? I'm curious how any journalist was supposed to second guess the US government on such a thing.
Karl Hallowell

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0

If you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.

Who discredited her and how? I'm curious how any journalist was supposed to second guess the US government on such a thing.


The Times fired her/she agreed to resign over her controversial reportage.
Check http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10444 for background on the controversy.
As for second-guessing, well the stories about this are everywhere. Read the papers.

Offline Martin FL

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2460
  • Liked: 137
  • Likes Given: 278
Great post Chris.

Snippet on purpose:


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.


RSP is busted as a great example of someone who takes biased reporting as 'gospel' truth.


If you're talking about Judith Miller of The New York Times, she was also later discredited because she bought and sold the White House's line on WMD's in Iraq. That's an example of journalism with one's head in the sand, among other things.

Who discredited her and how? I'm curious how any journalist was supposed to second guess the US government on such a thing.


The Times fired her/she agreed to resign over her controversial reportage.
Check http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?articleId=10444 for background on the controversy.
As for second-guessing, well the stories about this are everywhere. Read the papers.


Check out the site's "about us" page:

"The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas"

That's a great example of bias, where someone reads what they want to hear due to their personal interests. RSP is attempting to state a fact, sourcing an ultra liberal publication as his source.

A bit like the Alternative fans are using the Orlando Sentinel's anti-Ares agenda to 'back up' their claims.

No offense intended RSP, but you did walk headlong into that.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2008 01:42 pm by Martin FL »

Offline rsp1202

  • Elite Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1083
  • 3, 2, 1 . . . Make rocket go now
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
No offense taken. I certainly wouldn't want to upset your enjoyment  ;D.

Just because I link to one source doesn't mean I endorse it; I thought it an interesting discussion about journalism from journalists in response to a specific question. And of course I'm biased. Aren't you? Next time I'll link to some conservative journal at the same time so as not to offend anyone's sensibilities.

I also don't want to take this too far off-topic of space else we'll all get busted by the moderators.

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
I frankly haven't bothered with an opinion, for or con, as regards the new administration's NASA policies because:

a) it's still over a month away till the new President/Administration takes charge;
b) because of (a) no one outside of a very few people really know what the new President wants to do as far as overall NASA policy (regardless of whatever has appeared in the media and online up until now, and beyond);
c) there's still no hint as to who might be being considered as a new NASA Administrator;
d) because of (c) no one knows if or how NASA might go in a different direction as far as any (and ALL) manned spaceflight/unmanned space exploration considerations;
e) no one knows, still, how the new Congress (both sides) will regard NASA's budget and exploration/manned priorities as far as both budgeting and appropriating (spending) money to do anything we 'space geeks' think is really necessary for NASA in the next decade
« Last Edit: 12/14/2008 03:22 pm by MKremer »

Offline marsavian

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3216
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 3
Griffin : How to make friends and influence people Part 2

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa1408dec14,0,2552570,print.story

Griffin said NASA shouldn't be evaluated by how well it estimates the cost of projects.

"If we are to judge the worth of our work by our ability to estimate, then that is a standard I am not ready to apply or to accept," Griffin said.


"We are always going to be on
[GAO's] high-risk list," he said.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2008 04:03 pm by marsavian »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
Nice read. Thanks for that link marsavian.

Griffin won't win political support with comments like that. It is true it can be difficult to estimate certain projects, but there comes a point where the 'fudge factor' for inevitable cost increases have to be factored in for long-term or risky projects. Sure, it won't make certain projects go ahead, and they like to say it's better to ask forgiveness than ask permission, but at the end of the day you do lose all credibility if you can't manage your finances.

I wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...

Offline ugordan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8520
    • My mainly Cassini image gallery
  • Liked: 3543
  • Likes Given: 759
I wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...

I don't think he'd be too eager to return to a place he was forced out of because of trying to make some difficult decisions. People tend to be all in favor of his "let's get the costs right from the beginning" approach until it actually impacts their projects.

He was basically forced to resign for trying to kill one of the MERs because it wasn't arguably doing any valuable science/buck. Got a good bit of public against him on that decision too, I haven't seen many folks defending him. Imagine how many toes he'd step on if he was the administrator.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2008 04:36 pm by ugordan »

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
I wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...

I don't think he'd be too eager to return to a place he was forced out of because of trying to make some difficult decisions. People tend to be all in favor of his "let's get the costs right from the beginning" approach until it actually impacts their projects.

He was basically forced to resign for trying to kill one of the MERs because it wasn't arguably doing any valuable science/buck. Got a good bit of public against him on that decision too, I haven't seen many folks defending him. Imagine how many toes he'd step on if he was the administrator.

Well, difficult decisions are part of the job. Not endorsing him at all, I was questioning the likelyhood of him returning, and from your inference that may not seem likely. That's cool, thanks.

(scratch another name from the list)  ;)

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7827
  • Likes Given: 2
I think that one of the themes of this thread is that you shouldn't believe everything you read.  That also applies to the Miller case (both what she wrote, and what has been written about her).  But I'd suggest that it applies to some of the latest posts in this thread as well.  Keep in mind that it is rare that there is a single reason why something happened that everybody involved in the event agrees upon.

Offline imcub

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 7
Griffin : How to make friends and influence people Part 2

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/orl-nasa1408dec14,0,2552570,print.story

Griffin said NASA shouldn't be evaluated by how well it estimates the cost of projects.

"If we are to judge the worth of our work by our ability to estimate, then that is a standard I am not ready to apply or to accept," Griffin said.


"We are always going to be on
[GAO's] high-risk list," he said.


I would agree with Mr. Griffin on this ... regarding one-off satellites.  Developing new tools / methods  basic science in space has got to be incredibly difficult to estimate. 

Rocket design ... seems like we should have that down pat by now to come a little closer than 50 %.

Offline khallow

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1954
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 4
I wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...

I don't think he'd be too eager to return to a place he was forced out of because of trying to make some difficult decisions. People tend to be all in favor of his "let's get the costs right from the beginning" approach until it actually impacts their projects.

He was basically forced to resign for trying to kill one of the MERs because it wasn't arguably doing any valuable science/buck. Got a good bit of public against him on that decision too, I haven't seen many folks defending him. Imagine how many toes he'd step on if he was the administrator.

I wouldn't scratch a name off for the above reason and I'm not sure why anyone would. Just because someone had a bad experience in what sounds like an intractable position (that is, required to cut funding to the point that popular programs had to be affected) doesn't mean that they wouldn't reenter under better circumstances. Plus NASA administrator is a high prestige job with a lot of perks.
Karl Hallowell

Offline William Barton

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3487
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
I've said this before and I'll say it again. Griffin made one enormous mistake when he came on board, and that was to assume his solution to the VSE mandate could survive multiple election cycles and presidential transitions. That was utter folly. At a minimum, he needed to make sure a manned CEV had reached orbit by Fall of 2008 (ie, before the election). If that had been put before everything else (inlcuding his own favored architecture), it could have been done, and had he done it, it would be likely whoever won the election would have kept him on as a glorious success, and that would have bought him all the years out to 2016 to get to the Moon.

History proves this out time and again. Kennedy wanted to get men to the Moon before he left office at the beginning of 1969. But for Apollo 1 (and the mistakes that led up to it), it's likely the first manned landing would have been in late 1968. Nixon wanted the Shuttle to fly by 1976. Reagan made a mistake letting the space station get out of hand. He should have made it small enough to fly by 1988. As it was, Clinton decided to "brand" it for himself, and then made sure at least a little bit of it flew before he left office. You can argue details all you want, but the fact is, the election cycle in this country, and the swing back and forth between party-in-power spoilage, determines outcomes much more than anything else. Deciding on an architecture that put men on the Moon eight election cycles down the road, and which wouldn't show a single tangible *result* for five cycles, was just plain stupid.

Obama may make any kind of decision at all, including the really bad one he suggested at the beginning of his campaign. But if he wants to make Constellation his own, he's only got one rational course. Extend Shuttle to 2011 (ie., 2 to 4 more flights), make sure Orion is aloft by 2012 (during his run for reelection!), and make sure an American crew lands on the Moon before election day 2016 (nail down that part of his legacy and boost his chosen successor's chances of victory). I can think of several ways he can achieve that (EELV+Jupiter seems a pretty good bet, if you ask me). But it's too late now for a flat budget to handle it. I guess we'llfind out in the next few months.

You would like the following:

1.  Extend shuttle till 2012--2 -4 flights
2.  Orion by 2012
3.  Moon 2016 (EELV and Direct/Jupiter).

My questions:

1.   Will/can Orion Block A be ready by 2012?  What cost involved?
2.   What will Orion fly on--EELV? 
     Projectwise--How much and what would it cost.
3.  Moon by 2016.  Can Direct be ready even if only a flyby like Apollo 8.  How much will this cost, since NASA already impacted by time and  money to get Orion and EELV ready for 2012. 

Bottomline--budget may stay the same or just adjust for inflation/deflation. 

It looks to me--1 and 2 are very near term items.  Direct gets $05-2b a year till 2012 to start process, etc.  But as you said--President needs to see something fly in first term. 


The truth is, I don't know if it's "too late now." In my mid-2004 "Spaceflight" essay, I suggested the decisions needed to be made before the end of 2008, or it would be too late to change course. Don't know now if I was right or not back then, but I see others here saying it's too late (maybe persoanl agenda based, again I don't know). Specific questions:

1. I really don't know. My assumption is, yes, if your really pour money into it, a la Apollo. How long from program inception to Apollo 1? That's the realistic timeline limit.

2. I assume EELV, since that seems like the shortest path to getting a manned vehicle up. Surely it wouldn't take more than 3.5 years to get the vehicle man-rated, adapted for the job, and the pad infrastructure modified? Again, $$$$.

3. For 2016... I'd have to go look at the charts again, but they're talking 2018 with current budget money, and the J-2-derived EDS engine. I'm just assuming with extra $$$, that could be pulled leftwards 18 months or so. Altair is a seperate pole, again more $$$ to start now.

The whole thing is predicated on:

1. Obama wants it.
2. The rest of the Dems agree.
3. They stay in power until 2016.

1 abd 2 are probably fantasy. 3... Well it assumes no big non-space economic or military disasters, which would render the space program meaningless in any context. Obama could get us to Mars in 2012, and if somebody sets off a suitcase nuke in Central Park a week before election day, somebody else will be inaugurated come jan. 20, 2013.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7692
I wonder how credible/likely having Mr. Stern return and become NASA administrator is? A bit OT I know...

I don't think he'd be too eager to return to a place he was forced out of because of trying to make some difficult decisions. People tend to be all in favor of his "let's get the costs right from the beginning" approach until it actually impacts their projects.

He was basically forced to resign for trying to kill one of the MERs because it wasn't arguably doing any valuable science/buck. Got a good bit of public against him on that decision too, I haven't seen many folks defending him. Imagine how many toes he'd step on if he was the administrator.

I wouldn't scratch a name off for the above reason and I'm not sure why anyone would. Just because someone had a bad experience in what sounds like an intractable position (that is, required to cut funding to the point that popular programs had to be affected) doesn't mean that they wouldn't reenter under better circumstances. Plus NASA administrator is a high prestige job with a lot of perks.


Well, I'm just thinking out loud.
I have a list (my own) that 'I' see as potential candidates. I'm sure, if the transition team were looking to replace griffin, they would have a list to work off; they would be looking at the one that had a certain level of appeal to the public, along with the other necessary qualifications. If what I've heard/read is correct (will look into it myself to confirm) then that will form my final opinion, and the transition team will make up their own minds of the top picks.

Offline RedSky

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 511
  • Liked: 109
  • Likes Given: 2
An article in Florida Today about the transition team...

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20081214/NEWS02/812140325/1007/news02

Online Lee Jay

  • Elite Veteran
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8566
  • Liked: 3603
  • Likes Given: 327
SSP is not viable at this time.

I'm guessing it will NEVER be viable.  The thing is, an energy source and harnessing technology sufficient to reduce ground-to-LEO launch costs enough to make SSP viable (i.e. not chemicals) would likely also render it unnecessary.

Tags:
 

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