[meteorite-list] Breaking news-- satellite hit

From: Rob Matson <mojave_meteorites_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2008 21:04:44 -0800
Message-ID: <GOEDJOCBMMEHLEFDHGMMOEBHDIAA.mojave_meteorites_at_cox.net>

Hi Bob,

> My opinion of the news media is that they SHOULD report the news
> the way it was given to them.

No argument there. Problem is, at least on scientific matters,
they rarely do. They aren't qualified to ask the right questions
of their sources (and probably the "sources" know this, and at
times exploit it).

> It's not their job to analyze or read between the lines.

Ahh, but it IS there job to ask intelligent questions. They
never do. It's gotten to the point that I can't watch a news
story about anything having to do with space, astronomy, science,
physics or technology because the team of reporters, writers,
editors and newscasters are completely ignorant in these areas.

> I think everyone gets the "news media" confused with "entertainment
> media". In my brain, they are two completely separate groups
> and have different functions.

Ask people where they get their "news", and unfortunately it
will fall into the "entertainment media" cateogory. Local news,
network news, newspapers, doesn't matter -- it's all populist.
Television stations and newspapers are in the business of making
money, not necessarily reporting that which is truly "newsworthy".
Even the Science section in papers like the Los Angeles Times
(which rarely covers half a page) is usually boiler plate stuff
put out by the AP or Reuters.

I'm reminded of an appropriate quote from Eleanor Roosevelt:
"Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small
minds discuss people."

Network news exclusively addresses the second two items, with a
great deal of emphasis on trivial events involving trivial
people. It's unfortunate, but that's what the average person
actually wants.

> I agree that journalism is getting worse and worse, but I think
> it's because when they try to do the research, they aren't
> asking the right people.

True, and regretable because it is a completely avoidable situation.
You simply build a database of recurring technical subjects, and
next to each of them you have a list of "experts" that you call
when that subject comes up. Much like "expert witnesses" in a
courtroom.

> When a correspondent goes out into the field to get reports of
> a meteorite fireball (for example), they are asking the average
> Joe who knows nothing about the event.

Yes, and they NEVER ask them the right questions. "What direction?
What time? How long in duration?" Instead we get inane questions
like, "How did it make you feel? Were you frightened? Did you
call the police? What color was it?"

> "I was just sitting there on the porch and I saw this bright light..."

The average moron witness is more likely to say "I *seen* this bright
light." Verb tenses are not a strong point for Billy Bob and his
kin. ;-)

> Now back to the topic: Nothing new today about the shattered
> satellite on MSNBC. Did they get bored with it already? :-)

Didn't hit anyone, so yes. ;-)

> Have there been any reports of re-entering debris?

Yes: many reports from British Columbia about 10 minutes after impact.
Probably nothing that made it to the ground. I'm sure the light
show from South Africa was impressive, but I've not read any reports
to confirm this prediction.

--Rob
Received on Sat 23 Feb 2008 12:04:44 AM PST