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 ______________________________________________ http://www.meteoritecentral.com Meteorite-list mailing list Meteorite-list@meteoritecentral.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/meteorite-list
