mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (02/07/86)
I think that NASA is completely justified in restricting the information that is being released. Regardless of the value of speculation on the net (a subject that I will return to in a minute), the fact is that the media seem no more responsible and have the ability to cause whomever they single out to be damaged greatly. The apparent implication of the right SRB, for instance, could be played up in the media so as to injure the Thiokol division very badly (fortunately we are subsidizing them with table salt), when it is quite possible that mishandling of the assembled booster by NASA people could be the culprit. Conversely, media criticism of NASA could be devastating. The media love to second-guess, and to put public officials in the position of having to defend themselves against whatever charge the media dig up, regardless of the merit of either. Even so lofty a paper as the NYT has been cranking out a lot of misinformation. As far as I am concerned, NASA should clam a lid on everything until they have a solid report to make. As for net speculation: after reading Eugene Miya's long missive, I am convinced that the speculation level needs to come down. There is too much misinformation being injected into the net, and given that, there's the equal likelyhood of net speculation being back-converted into wild rumors. For my part, I am going to refrain from further discussion of the accident itself. C. Wingate
bzs@bucsd.UUCP (Barry Shein) (02/09/86)
>From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) >I think that NASA is completely justified in restricting the information >that is being released. >... >As far as I am concerned, NASA should clam a lid on everything until they >have a solid report to make. >... >There is too much >misinformation being injected into the net, and given that, there's the >equal likelyhood of net speculation being back-converted into wild rumors. Hopefully the parts edited out don't predjudice this, the full article is obviously available to all... I don't understand the obsession with 'misinformation' and 'speculation', you never go on to explain just what harm is being caused by the current situation. I agree the press can act like idiots (eg. see the Larry Speakes press conference 15 minutes after the disaster, unbelievably stupid questions) but what real harm does it do? Especially in the long run as the facts do come out? I think lack of information is precisely what encourages speculation and therefore conclude the opposite: NASA should be as frank and open as possible as any information from them will hopefully be perceived as authoritative, like the 'green cannister' info, the facts I believe straightened people's paranoia out real fast. I can see the annoyance with half-brained speculation, but isn't suppression of conversation and berating anyone who is not completely correct far more damaging and dangerous in the long run? I think so. Remember, you just don't need all the facts to draw a rational conclusion, mainly just a rational mind to know what you know and what you don't. I couldn't explain exactly what is in one of those green cannisters, but I think I now believe that no one is trying to hide something from me and that the stuff is dangerous, and it's just an unfortunate thing, nothing more, nothing less. I would prefer, by far, to separate the wheat from the chaff than to try to interpret silence and censorship, any day. -Barry Shein, Boston University