rjg@sialis.mn.org (Robert J. Granvin) (05/05/89)
During todays launch of the Atlantis, an interesting comment was made during the "commentary" of the launch. During the coverage of the launch by one network, it was noted that they had passed the fateful "Go at throttle up" point, and that NASA was being very cautious in its launches. The comment was that what essentially caused the Challenger accident was a feeling within NASA that shuttle launches, and therefore space flight, had become "commonplace". Without even wanting to discuss that particular comment, it's my opinion that if anyone considered shuttle launches as "commonplace", it would be media itself, not NASA. By the time the Challenger was launched, the media had effectively discontinued coverage of the events. National news networks no longer routinely interrupted regular broadcasting to report on the launch. Those that did, reduced it to the 5 or so minutes of actual "drama". Some networks didn't cover it at all. Cable news services were better. Regular news broadcasts noted the launches usually 5 or more minutes into the broadcast. Though they usually showed video of the launch, this wasn't always the case. Newspapers, local and national, stopped placing the launch news on front pages. It began to get buried deeper into the papers. All news media formats reduced or stopped coverage completely of the actual mission and mission status. Local cable services may or may not have carried NASA Select during the events. Some of those that did in the past, reduced the carriage to portions of the day, and not necessarily for the entire mission. Coverage of the landings didn't diminish as much as the launches, but they did diminish. They weren't covered as well to begin with. By the time of the Challenger accident, many people didn't realize that some shuttles had recently launched. Many people didn't realize the Challenger was launching until they tuned in and saw the extended national coverage of the accident. If the accident never happened, they may have never known of the launch. It is my opinion that even if NASA did fall into a feeling that space flight had become commonplace, it is the media who instilled that opinion into the general public. A large percentage of the public will get their only information from the media, and will react to it as the media presents. If the media presents it as "not a big deal", it will be responded to in that way. Did NASA become complacent? Some say yes. But whether or not they did, it's hard to conceive that the media can come out of those events completely clean either, and comments such as todays, squarely placing blame on NASA, could be perceived as hypocritical on the part of the media. And that's our commentary babble for tonite. :-) -- ________Robert J. Granvin________ INTERNET: rjg@sialis.mn.org ____National Computer Systems____ CONFUSED: rjg%sialis.mn.org@shamash.cdc.com __National Information Services__ UUCP: ...uunet!rosevax!sialis!rjg
labc-4da@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Bob Heiney) (05/06/89)
Here's my two cents about shuttle media coverage: it's awful! FLAME ON For yesterday's launch of Atlantis, ABC only covered the last 2 and a half minutes of the countdown. Yes, I know Ollie North's verdict came down at about the same time, but they weren't saying anything relevant about it. All we ever see after the initial live coverage is "5 4 3 2 1 liftoff..." voice-over "The space shuttle ___ lifted off today after numerous delays..." Since the Challenger disaster we now get: 1) A more detailed crew bio right before lift-off, including their ages 2) To hold our breath along with Peter Jennings at T+73 secs 3) To sigh with relief when the boosters drop away This drives me *crazy*. But the thing the annoys me the most is how they constantly talk over mission control. I don't have access to NASA select, and would love to just listen to all the countdown and ascent audio, but I can never hear it because some network anchor is always blabbing on about some meaningless point. I also think this whole idea of "a return to the Golden Age of space exploration" is total BS. As someone recently pointed out in this newsgroup, space exploration is almost dead in the U.S. FLAME OFF Space flight and exploration are not commonplace (yet), and shouldn't be viewed as such. The media should take the time to educate their anchors and reporters about the shuttle. Perhaps expecting to hear Mission Control, which isn't very understandable to many, is foolish; I still want to. Mostly, I'd just like the truth told. Magellan is a mapper, not an atmosphere probe like one of the anchors mentioned. The ET is *not* a motor, it's a tank, Mr. Jennings. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | Bob Heiney "And in the end, the love you | | labc-4da@rosebud.Berkeley.edu take is equal to the love you make." | | -- The Beatles | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
jeffg@blake.acs.washington.edu (Jeffrey D. Goldader) (05/06/89)
In article <24071@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, labc-4da@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Bob Heiney) writes: > Here's my two cents about shuttle media coverage: it's awful! > > .... I don't have access to NASA select, and would love > to just listen to all the countdown and ascent audio, but I can never > hear it because some network anchor is always blabbing on about some > meaningless point. > >.,... The ET is *not* a motor, it's a tank, > Mr. Jennings. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Bob Heiney "And in the end, the love you | > | labc-4da@rosebud.Berkeley.edu take is equal to the love you make." | > | -- The Beatles | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, I agree. Dan Rather talked about the separation of the solid fuel *tanks*. (Did he also talk about the liquid fuel booster, too, or did I see Jennings while trying desperately to find CAPCOM audio?) Maybe if we used recombinant DNA technology on them, we could produce an anchor who knew what he was talking about? Nah... ;-) Oh- I noticed that CNN, especially during the scrubbed launch attempt, had their commentators shut up during the last 2 or 3 minutes or so. Very nice. Even one of the free-TV networks had a quiet anchor. I would so much rather listen to Launch Control than some anchor who knows nothing about the shuttle try to talk intelligently about the shuttle. -Jeff Goldader Univ. of Washington Depts. of Astronomy and Physics jeffg@blake.acs.washington.edu jeffg@uw-beaver!blake.UUCP DISCLAIMER: The University of Washington is not responsible for the content of the above message. They don't want my opinions, anyway.
tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) (05/06/89)
In article <1908@blake.acs.washington.edu> jeffg@blake.acs.washington.edu (Jeffrey D. Goldader) writes: > ... I would >so much rather listen to Launch Control than some anchor who knows >nothing about the shuttle try to talk intelligently about the shuttle. I agree with most of this sentiment but has anyone noticed what a BLABBERMOUTH Launch Control has become lately?!! Maybe I'm gilding the lily here, but I (in turn) would rather listen to the *loop* during countdown than to Hugh Harris droning awwn and awwwn and awwwwn about every "Commonplace" thing that happens every launch ("and we're now at T minus X minutes X seconds and counting, and at X minutes Y seconds the shuttle's such and such will begin an automatic purge program, T minus X minutes Y seconds and counting...") while we struggle to hear whatever the RSO or Flight Director just said! For those who know the subject matter there's REAL drama going on behind the PR man's patter. (At least he's accurate, the newsclowns' fumblings are of course far worse.) I haven't had NASASELECT for years, does its audio carry Hugh H. or just the loop? -- Tom Neff UUCP: ...!uunet!bfmny0!tneff "Truisms aren't everything." Internet: tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
bm21+@andrew.cmu.edu (Bret Jonathon Musser) (05/07/89)
Are there any radio stations that broadcast what mission control is saying??? If so, during the next launch, I can keep my TV volume wwwwwaaaaaayyyyyyy down and my radio wwwwaaaaayyyy up and be a happy puppy. :-) Yeah, I too think its really ridiculous (?sp) (silly) how much noise pollution there is blocking out the Real (Wo)Men at Nasa (as opposed to the PR people). And the graphics that are displayed are pretty silly too (like on NBC, CBS, etc. No cable tv here). Why can't they just talk about the mission? The Magellan probe was virtually unmentioned in the broadcast I watched. Sigh. BJM =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Bret J. Musser -- Carnegie-Mellon University | "The more perfect civilization bm21%andrew@cmccvb (bitnet) | is, the less occasion has it bm21@andrew.cmu.edu (arpanet) | for government..." Undergraduate -- Applied Math | --Thomas Paine, Rights of Man =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
zweig@m.cs.uiuc.edu (05/07/89)
By the way, C-SPAN has much better coverage of shuttle launches than ABC for the most part. I bet it has a weensy bit to do with the number of beer commercials that aren't run during the countdown... (Wink!) -Johnny Zweig University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Department of Computer Science --------------------------------Disclaimer:------------------------------------ Rule 1: Don't believe everything you read. Rule 2: Don't believe anything you read. Rule 3: There is no Rule 3. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
odlin@reed.UUCP (Iain Odlin) (05/07/89)
In article <24071@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> labc-4da@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Bob Heiney) writes: >But the thing the annoys me the most is how they constantly talk over >mission control. Try watching on Canadian stations. Blissful, blessed silence from the "commentators." -- ----------------------------------Iain Odlin---------------------------------- Box 1014, Reed College, Portland OR, 97202 odlin@reed -or- {ogccse, tektronix}!reed!odlin "A friend is someone who likes you in spite of yourself."
phil@titan.rice.edu (William LeFebvre) (05/08/89)
In article <14308@bfmny0.UUCP> tneff@bfmny0.UUCP (Tom Neff) writes: >I agree with most of this sentiment but has anyone noticed what a >BLABBERMOUTH Launch Control has become lately?!! He does tend to run on a bit, and he makes silly mistakes (like "stirring the vehicle"). >I haven't had NASASELECT for years, does its audio carry Hugh H. or just >the loop? It's the exact same feed that the networks use. It has the "voice" of Launch Control (Hugh Harris, usually) and the mission control public affairs person talking over the loops. Personally, I'd like to hear more than just the air/ground loop. I want to hear the flight director loop! The problem is that they are very brief and cryptic, using acronyms and such to make communication succint. I couldn't figure out what the call "R1U failed off, no action" right after MECO was about. I knew that it was a failure, and that the crew didn't have to take any action about it, but I didn't know what failed. Only after asking a flight controller did I learn that "R1U" is one of the RCS jets on the Right side, manifold 1, pointing Up. Sigh. William LeFebvre Department of Computer Science Rice University <phil@Rice.edu>
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John H. Kim) (05/08/89)
In article <24071@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> labc-4da@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Bob Heiney) writes: > >But the thing the annoys me the most is how they constantly talk over >mission control. I don't have access to NASA select, and would love >to just listen to all the countdown and ascent audio, but I can never >hear it because some network anchor is always blabbing on about some >meaningless point. Perhaps we should start a movement drowning the networks with mail asking them to stop talking over mission control. Or (this is getting a little sophisticated) we could ask them to rotate anchors between launches so those who have never seen a launch (do these people actually exist?) get to hear the anchor on just one of the major networks. -- John H. Kim | (This space to be filled when I jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim | to use as a disclaimer)
kanefsky@umn-cs.CS.UMN.EDU (Steve Kanefsky) (05/08/89)
In article <1194@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> jokim@jarthur.UUCP (John H. Kim) writes: > >Perhaps we should start a movement drowning the networks with mail asking >them to stop talking over mission control. Or (this is getting a little >sophisticated) we could ask them to rotate anchors between launches so >those who have never seen a launch (do these people actually exist?) get >to hear the anchor on just one of the major networks. Better yet, why can't the networks use the second audio program (SAP) part of MTS, so that anyone with a stereo TV can choose to hear the anchor or just the straight feed? Steve Kanefsky CSci Dept. University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota kanefsky@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu
paulf@Jessica.stanford.edu (Paul Flaherty) (05/09/89)
In article <22000017@m.cs.uiuc.edu> zweig@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: > By the way, C-SPAN has much better coverage of shuttle launches than ABC >for the most part. I bet it has a weensy bit to do with the number of beer >commercials that aren't run during the countdown... (Wink!) Huh? The CSPAN coverage of the PANAMSAT / AMSAT OSCAR 13 launch was terrible! Commentary came from one of CSPAN's political correspondents, and two newspaper financial reporters. Not quite as bad as Dan "I'd Rather Not" Rather, but that's hardly a compliment... -=Paul Flaherty, N9FZX | "Research Scientists need Porsches, too!" ->paulf@shasta.Stanford.EDU | -- Bloom County
snidely@inteloa.intel.com (David P. Schneider) (05/09/89)
In article <24071@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> labc-4da@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Bob Heiney) writes: >For yesterday's launch of Atlantis, ABC only covered the last 2 and a >half minutes of the countdown. Yes, I know Ollie North's verdict came >down at about the same time, but they weren't saying anything relevant >about it. NBC did better, coming in at about 5 minutes (I think). In fact, that's how I discovered that they'd (NASA) had decided it was OK to shoot. I was also monitoring CNN, Headline News, and both CSPANs. I don't know if they ever caught on. >But the thing the annoys me the most is how they constantly talk over >mission control. I don't have access to NASA select, and would love >to just listen to all the countdown and ascent audio, but I can never >hear it because some network anchor is always blabbing on about some >meaningless point. CSPAN has been kind enough to give about an hour of NASA select on one or the other channel. I watched this, and taped it, for the first attempt. But appearently, the editors were tripped up by the uncertainty of Thursday count. I know I was suprised at how suddenly the count resumed, as there was concern that the improvement in the cloud cover was coming at the ex- pense of crosswinds. But since the window was rapidly coming to an end, I guess the launch team had to be ready for a quick decision. > Mostly, I'd just like the truth told. > Magellan is a mapper, not an atmosphere > probe like one of the anchors mentioned. > The ET is *not* a motor, it's a tank, > Mr. Jennings. Maybe they should take their Macs and Hypercards out of the "Election Night" studio, and set them up for launch. I know I couldn't speak ex tem- pore on the shuttle, follow Good Scout Ollie, riots in Beijing, elections in Panama, continuing cleanup in Alaska (with celebrity visits), drought in the midwest, ..., and sound cogent. I have a hard enough time sounding cogent on Usenet! David P. Schneider BiiN (tm) Monday, 5.8
jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (John H. Kim) (05/09/89)
In article <4391@omepd.UUCP> snidely@inteloa.UUCP (David P. Schneider) writes: >In article <24071@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> labc-4da@web-2f.berkeley.edu (Bob Heiney) writes: > >>For yesterday's launch of Atlantis, ABC only covered the last 2 and a >>half minutes of the countdown. Yes, I know Ollie North's verdict came >>down at about the same time, but they weren't saying anything relevant >>about it. > >NBC did better, coming in at about 5 minutes (I think). In fact, that's CBS also came in at 5 minutes. Considering NASA had held the clock at 5 minutes, I don't see why any of the networks would have bothered to cover before 5min. CBS also broke away at about 3min to cover Ollie but got back in time for the launch. CBS was also nice enough to show lots of pretty pictures of the shuttle on the pad when NASA was running the clock from 9min to 5min. -- John H. Kim | (This space to be filled when I jokim@jarthur.Claremont.EDU | think of something very clever uunet!muddcs!jarthur!jokim | to use as a disclaimer)