Space Reporting Snobbery

His comments are definitely interesting, but I think that particular "school of reporting" is quickly changing. Nearly gone are the days when paid reporters and talking heads are the primary source of information. When it comes to something as technical and broad as "space, the final frontier", there is an ever-increasing number of bloggers, the tehcnocratically inclined, and generally interested folks, who will post whatever blog/blurb/tweet/facebook posting/etc tickles their fancy; thusly news spreads from members of the masses horizontally..

Sure, paid reporters have their place in reporting the news, but in this world of increasing connectivity between corporations and the average Joe (or plumber Joe if you prefer), the place of the "traditional paid reporter" is definitely shrinking...

Day writes: "...nobody reported on NASA's flawed safety culture before Columbia, for instance..." Uh, without any boasting on a sore topic (what I wrote was useless to prevent the 'Columbia' disaster, so I take no pride in it) but for the sake of historical accuracy, allow me to offer these items:

NASA's Not Shining Moments, Scientific American, Feb 2000

http://www.jamesoberg.com/022000nasanotshining.html

"Many observers have been alarmed at the apparent increase [of failures], which could be a symptom of deeper problems that could lead to more failures in the future. . . . NASA will have to address its systemic weaknesses if it is to avoid a new string of expensive, embarrassing and perhaps in some cases life-threatening foul-ups."

In New Scientist, April 15, 2000, I wrote:
"Critics say that a number of accidents, oversights and failures in other NASA programmes indicate that other parts of the organisation are stretched to the breaking point. NASA, they say, is repeating the errors that led to the Challenger disaster. The consequences of a future accident could, also, be fatal.. . . The cost of forgetting is now measured in hundreds of millions of dollars, years of delay and public humiliation. So far, no more human lives have been lost but the question NASA must answer is whether this will continue."

A detailed report of the safety culture flaws that destroyed the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999 can be found at http://www.jamesoberg.com/mars/loss.html, my prize-winning IEEE Spectrum article on 'Why the Mars Probe Went off Course'. Here's the key excerpt:

"Even if what ruined the Mars Climate Orbiter mission can be overcome, it should not be forgotten. The analogies with the Challenger disaster are illuminating, as several direct participants in the flight have independently told Spectrum.

"In that situation, managers chose to cling to assumptions of "goodness" even as engineers insisted the situation had strayed too far into untested conditions, too far "away from goodness." The engineers were challenged to "prove it ISN'T safe," when every dictum of sound flight safety teaches that safety is a quality that must be established--and reestablished under new conditions--by sound analysis of all hazards. "Take off your engineering hat and put on your management hat" was the advice given to one wavering worker, who eventually went along with the launch decision.

"Similarly, various versions of the trajectory debate in the final days of the flight indicate that in the face of uncertainty, decision-makers clung to the assumption of goodness; assertions of trajectory trouble had to be proved rigorously. Just the opposite attitude should have ruled the debate."

As I said, I was ineffective in making that point, a matter of some dismay to me to this day.

Editor's note; Jim, after reading Dwayne's piece I just did not know where to start my critique - there are so many inaccuracies and whoppers contained therein. I can recall you writing about shuttle safety waaaaay back, well before Columbia. I can recall the whole Mir saga as well and how you testified - more than once - before COngress about safety issues within NASA's human spaceflight programs. Dwayne just refuses to use facts when he starts waving his arms around like this.

You know, this doesn't have anything to do with just being smart or creative about technical, scientific, or even policy matters. So Jim's wisdom doesn't pertain. It's about fair and balanced reporting of the news. Journalists actually go to school learning how to develop and research stories, and sometimes the story is a lot deeper and more involved than a quick news note can convey. NASA Watch, for example (because I'm sure, Keith, that's what's on your mind here) may be "fair and balanced", but it's also built out of miniscule snippets of news and opinionated fragments, as well as copies of leaked and public documents. For what it is, those are very interesting and entertaining! But I expect more from a professional journalist, whether they use internet or traditional media and whether or not they get paid. What you do is hard, and it really serves a need, but it's not journalism in the classic sense. I think Dwayne is bemoaning the loss of that kind of journalism.

Editor's note: you'd be surprised just how many of the professionals read NASA Watch and how much work is actually involved to get the things that are posted on NASA Watch. I doubt these "professional" journalists would waste their time unless they thought it to be of some value. Oh yes, I get "paid" for what I put online - indeed it is my sole source of income i.e my "profession". I have written a book, edited several others, been published in legitimate mainstream newspapers and magazines, and am a (semi) regular on TV - but that does not qualify in your book because .... why?

And (yawn) here I am responding to someone who won't even use their real name.

Keith, I have to wonder who is really being the snob here? You, yourself, posted on this blog only a few days ago a lament about the loss of several veteran space reporters including Mark Carreau. Dwayne Day's main points here is that the loss of these veteran space reporters will affect the quality of news coverage by major publications. This reduced pool will lead to the likelihood of the news media simply publishing the press releases from space industry corporations that are short on facts and long on scifi. These reporters actually conducted interviews and and travel to launch sites and manufacturing facilities to cover the ongoing behind the scene operations. Their accumulated knowledges allows them to give the public a fairer independent view of NASA and its contractors. Dwayne acknowledges the changing nature of the news media in the Internet Age in his post but expresses the view that experience space reporters still need to be retained or supported. I perplexed as to why you consider his view elitist. And yes, I do actually remember reading several of James Oberg's articles about shuttle safety before the Columbia disaster. In fact, his articles changed my view of the space shuttle and the need to retire the shuttle so that NASA can move on to a hopefully better manned space system. So Dwayne's assumption there was a erroneous, but that point was minor compared the posts main focus.

Editor's note: I guess you need to re-read what I wrote. I commented about Dwayne Day's snobbish, elitist view of what a professional space reporter is or is not. It seems you are only a pro if you are paid.

I wonder how many articles he has actually been paid for and which ones he has not. According to his take on the profession, he should identify the ones he was paid for because they are more worthy than those for which he was not paid.

And oh yes, why is he so reluctant to point out that he is an employee of the NRC Space Studies Board? His salary is paid for with grants from NASA. Should he not be using full disclosure in identifying who pays his salary - especially when he suggests that that corporate news items may mislead readers?

Keith since you felt the need to call me out on another blog I am reposting my response here with my actual real name.

"Lol! Well, Keith, you certainly to enjoy word games. "In kind" refers to my criticism of your own behavior and that you are acting snobbish. Dwayne never represented himself as a professional journalist or reporter and the fact is there is a commonly accepted definition of professional reporter by the news media for which Mr. Day was referring is neither snobbish nor elitist. If you insist on bandying words about like Rush Limbaugh namecalling others who support space activities on some imagined insult you do a disservice to yourself and the space community."

Editor's note: Hey, ain't the Internet wonderful!

It seems you are only a pro if you are paid.

Well, that is true by definition.

But it's a mistake to equate "professional" with "expert" and "amateur" with "inexpert." There are many amateurs (i.e., unpaid) in every field who can run rings around the "professionals" even though they're not getting paid. For instance, I'd match Henry Spencer up against almost any professional space historian, though he does it for love, not pay.

Sometimes (most times) I'm a commentator, sometimes I commit acts of journalism, where I really do call people or visit places and take pictures and things. Sometimes I get paid, sometimes (most times) I don't. It's not a useful distinction.

And when one looks at the curriculum of a journalism degree, it's pretty hard to be impressed with someone who has one simply by dint of having one. There are good journalists with journalism degrees, but they likely would have been as good, and perhaps better, with a different degree.

Keith, I'd like to say something like I no more want to be subject to "citizen journalism" than I do "citizen dentistry", but I realize that seems like an unfair comparison even though both can be pretty painful. But it brings up a key point. No matter what talented and creative writers with their blogs may believe, high quality, accurate reporting and journalism require skill, education and experience (and if you don't know the difference between the two, then you are neither). The education doesn't have to be "formal" as is exemplified by history's great beat reporters who cut their teeth by pounding the pavement rather than sitting in a classroom. Still, it is education and experience gained from sitting on the inside of the "industry", not from sitting at home on the outside giving one's opinion, learned or not, that makes someone the skills of a professional.

That's really the issue of contention when people talk about what makes a "real" journalist or reporter. Bloggers, for the most part, give commentary and opinion regarding what they see and think. That's not reporting. It's opinion. It's a valuable component of the news media, but the simple fact is that there is a difference between objective reporting and commentary. That's why news programs and newspapers separate the hard fact-based news from the opinion pieces. On the internet, there's no such separation. The result is that people seem to be less able to distinguish between the two.

How many people think that the talk radio guys are "news people"? They are not. They're not reporters and they don't get on the air to report the news. They are commentators, period. Their job is to tell people what they think, right or wrong. Hopefully they do their research and learn the facts, but it's not a requirement. They're not reporters. They are commentators. They aren't CNN or MSNBC whose responsibility IS to report the news. However, I think most of the general public doesn't see the difference and merely equates the two... and then either believes or disbelieves whatever they agree or disagree with, without actually checking the facts.

I think, in short, "I read on the Internet..." has become the standard rationale for stating something as fact, even though most of what's on the internet is anything but factual. It's the blurring of the line between what is reporting and what is opinion, between news and commentary, that has die-hard reporters up in arms.

I live by a basic rule. If I see it written and posted by someone on a blog, I consider it a complete opinion piece and will not believe anything in it until I do research.

Now, one component of journalism is providing commentary, to be sure. There are some wonderful blogs/websites filled with great and insightful commentary (NASA Watch being one of them). But, again, that is a different animal than doing the research, knocking on doors, calling up "official" people and going to the site of an event to get the real story. That is the reporting component of journalism.

Editor's note: excuse me, but what evidence do you have that I do not/have not engaged in that aspect of the process of journalism? Call NASA PAO and ask them how many times I have made requests for interviews and data, sat in on media telecons, press conferences, etc. at THEIR invitation?

The problem is there are so many people on the Internet who engage in commentary but who treat is as objective, fact-based journalism... and enough people who read the material and can't tell the difference, that it really is diluting hard-core, fact and research-based reporting.

Let me provide an example. A couple/few shuttle missions ago, I was, along with a number of colleagues, at Kennedy Space Center to report on the launch from the KSC News Center. During the countdown, someone notices (camera view or something) a discoloration on the external tank. Within seconds, someone purporting to be a know-it-all posted on a certain well-visited website that there was a crack in the external tank. Apparently he heard from someone knowledgeable who heard from.... or whatever, it was typical "in my opnion" garbage from someone who didn't bother to find out the truth before instantly posting his thoughts as fact. Within minutes, thousands of people around the world believed the tank had a crack in it. That's typical "citizen journalism" - a complete lack of fact-checking. What did we in the news center do? We asked the KSC News Chief for more information, and got the real answer, the truth, and reported it. That's professional journalism.

Notice, I didn't qualify the above with statements about who works for what company or who gets paid what. A number of the best journalist I know get paid little or nothing. They are no less professional though. In this regard, I agree with Rand wholeheartedly.

However, one mustn't forget that knowing a subject matter is only one component of journalism. Knowing how to analyze and interpret the facts and background of a story and present it effectively to the audience is just as important. That's why, many times, having a degree and experience/knowledge in a particular industry doesn't mean someone is able to interpret and report on it for the public as effectively as a reporter. Just as a space reporter with decades of experience and knowledge may not be the one you want in launch control conducting the countdown, no matter how well he knows the S0007 procedures. Knowledge of a field, and Henry Spencer definitely has that, does not make someone a good journalist.. although there are a few.

Can citizen journalists also be professional journalists? Absolutely. But only if they undertake the effort to learn the industry (the news industry, not the space industry) and learn what it takes to be a journalist and then put into their work the standard professional practices of a journalist or reporter. In that regard, it's no different than any other industry. I mean, seriously, just because I can fill out a 1040 form doesn't make me a professional accountant or professional tax preparer for that matter. By doing what's required to become a professional, which is far more than just knowing how to fill out tax form, then and only then can I consider myself an actual professional. Journalism is no different.

Even still, citizen journalists can and do contribute valuable work. Unfortunately, too much of what's out there is of low-quality and of little or no use to people who either want or need to know the real facts of a story.

That much said, those of us in "new media" (how can it still be new after 16 years???) have to step up, become more professional overall, and take up the mantle held by traditional journalism for so long because, you are right, times are changing, and there's no going back.

Editor's note: thanks for taking some considerable time to think - and comment - about this topic.

Keith, while you are not a candidate for sainthood, when your readers start comparing you to Rush Limbaugh, they have crossed the line!
Actually, Henry Louis Mencken comes to mind....or perhaps Mike Royko..
(and some readers will say 'who'??)

I was thinking from a historical perspective, since it seems most of us think we're in a new age never seen before. But.... really, what's happening now in the news industry isn't a new phenomenon. If you look back 200 (and more) years ago, you'll see that the advent of inexpensive printing presses led to an explosion of "citizen" newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets. An example of one is the famous "Common Sense". As today, when just about everyone with an intellect has a website, back then many many many "thinkers" printed their own newspapers. Just like websites, the schedule for updating (printing) them was generally erratic and over time most would die off. But, it was true citizen journalism and a driving factor in the establishment of the free press and the Constitutional protections of it. The medium has changed today, but the fundamentals aren't that different. Mainstream newspapers were scared back then too. But, in the end, quality citizen journalism survived, and a lot of it got abosrbed by the mainstream, and the inaccurate, low-quality garbage died off. In the end, the news industry and the "old" newspapers survived, thrived even. The industry was changed, but it was more an evolution than a destruction. I think... I HOPE that is what is happening today. I believe it is, but only the future will tell the tale. And you'll be able to read about it both on the web and in print.

Frank Sietzen:

Wasn't it Mike Royko who said a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged? And I always remember Henry Louis Mencken referred to as H.L. Mencken. And I do believe we're still in the era of monkey trials.

Keith:

At times the internet is wonderful.

Editor's note: you'd be surprised just how many of the professionals read NASA Watch and how much work is actually involved to get the things that are posted on NASA Watch. I doubt these "professional" journalists would waste their time unless they thought it to be of some value. Oh yes, I get "paid" for what I put online - indeed it is my sole source of income i.e my "profession". I have written a book, edited several others, been published in legitimate mainstream newspapers and magazines, and am a (semi) regular on TV - but that does not qualify in your book because .... why?

I am a professional, and I do read NASA Watch along with my professional colleagues, so you can stop wagging your finger at me. No surprise at all that you have a devoted following. I appreciate what you do. In fact, your books and magazine articles are insightful, thoughtful, and well researched. They are indeed nice examples of classic journalism. But your blog is not. It's wry commentary and opinion, a hefty dose of rumor and innuendo, and pretty much what's on your mind. Everest! That's why. That doesn't make it unworthy. It's great stuff, entertaining, and often a true resource, but it's not comparable to classic journalism. You seem to take offense at that, and I'm not quite sure why you should.

And (yawn) here I am responding to someone who won't even use their real name.

Chill out, and get some sleep!

Editor' s note: Goodnight, *Blink*.

I gotta hand it to you Keith, You really know how to push peoples buttons! I guess that is a good enough reason for me to keep reading, even if I did find this entire debate silly! Snobs? Elitists? bloggers? journalists? From my point of view, you all do the same job. And you all do it too well to waste time bickering over how it gets done or who does it better.

I wish more "New Media" journalists and bloggers would spend more time learning HTML and to program for speed and ease of transition between web pages.


Some of them doen't seem to realize there are browsers other than Micro$oft's Internet Explorer, including my favorite, the Opera browser which runs rings around Explorer and that klunker, "designed by volunteers", Firefox.


Keith undoubtably has a good grasp on programming for the web as his blog is always as smooth as silk.


Being on dialup makes the poorly coded sites and klunky browsers readily apparent as there is no speed to cover up the klunky code.

Eric-
As a postscript, the "Sage of Baltimore"-or "Baltimer" as he pronounced it-and the Great Chi-town muckraker both were considered journalists during their lifetimes. Mencken's entire journalism training consisted of a night class in newspaper ad writing, for he never set foot in a college class. As for Royko, he dropped out of community college to join the military, whose papers were his initial outlets for his talent. And while I confess to having attended journalism school, I have yet to achieve what Royko did seamlessly-he won a Pulitzer Prize for his newspaper columns. And when he died, so many thousands jammed the streets leading to the church where his service was held, police had to direct the traffic. Geez, when I croak, I bet only three guys show up-and two will be looking for the bathroom!
If Mencken or Royko were alive today, I bet they'd be bloggers just like Keith...

"I wish more "New Media" journalists and bloggers would spend more time learning HTML and to program for speed and ease of transition between web pages."

What makes you think that their focus is on the visual presentation side?

As a side hobby, I do the tech side of a college sports web site that sees three million unique visits a year. There are 5-6 writers for that system, and I can assure you that I am the only web server expert in that group.

We hardly use HTML, save for embedded links and pictures, which are handled by a WYSISYG editor (actually there are 3-4 flavors). The server itself is PHP based. (I am also fluent in dot-net, but that particular box is a LAMP setup and doesn't use Microsoft web technologies.)

In short, the other writers know nothing about the PHP code, or CSS, or for that matter, the SQL database that provides the data for what they do. They don't have to, that's not their focus, it is mine.

I suspect that most if not nearly all folks are in a similar situation.

FYI : this just in :

Modern Internet Science Journalism Defined

Quality reporting has market value. If it's good enough, you can sell non-exclusive rights and publish it on your website too. Sometimes you can publish it on your website before selling it. The recent "call for writers" post shows how different the new media world is - you don't get paid and you're not allowed to publish it anywhere else! I imagine it would drive the professional-quality writers/reporters away. It even drove me away.

Editor's note: that does not seem to have deterred all of the folks who have signed up. Wait 'til you see who we got!

To the prior poster: misspelling "amateur" tends to blunt the force of your argument.

Keith, I read Dwayne's article in a different light than you, I think. Leaving aside whether there's any elitism involved, I think he does raise a valid point in regards to professional ( = paid) journalists compared to non-professional ( = unpaid) ones. I'm not a professional journalist -- no training, no experience, no nothing. I think, though, that I have sufficient background knowledge in many space-related areas to be able to write effectively on the subject. In that sense, I totally agree with your point (as I see it): that "amateurs" can make equally good contributions to the journalistic discourse.

On the other hand, there's a practical aspect, too -- I just don't have time to write about space, much as I'd like to do so, because I have another job to do. I think that applies to all "amateur" writers to some extent, except for true freelancers (who support themselves entirely through freelancing). Someone who is paid to report on space, e.g. by a newspaper or other "traditional" media, on the other hand, does not have this limitation. (In theory.)

So therefore, if a story exists out in the wilderness, it is more likely that a professional journalist -- who does not have the time/income restraints that an amateur has -- would find and report the story. It doesn't mean that ONLY a professional can find and discover the story... just that in the absence of professionals, it may be less likely that the story would be reported, because reporting would require that an amateur (a) have knowledge of the story, or obtain it via their investigatory skills AND (b) not be constrained by other "real life" considerations from pursuing the story. For a professional, you (theoretically) only need (a).

I think that's a valid point -- the death of "professional" journalism probably would increase the likelihood that stories will go unreported, or reported in less detail, than they would if professionals were working in the marketplace.

I also think it's the tip of a bigger iceberg than just professional journalism -- it's the ongoing revolution in how information is obtained and disseminated. But that's another issue entirely...

... and if left unchecked, internet reporting and blogging could damage the high standards of professional journalism established by such media institutions as People Magazine and Entertainment Tonight. Keith, you're no Rona Barrett!

It should be pointed out that, as of today, every single post on the home page of NASA Watch is (except for one or two introductory sentences, which are often just taken from the source) a copy of a document, or a link to a news item somewhere else.

That's informative and handy, and I guess one can call it "reporting", but it isn't journalism.

Five days worth of posts. No interpretations. No connections. No analysis. The journalists that Dwayne Day is referring to do all of that.

Editor's note: and for 5 days you continue to visit NASA Watch. Have you no self-control?

it isn't journalism.

I just come here for the facts. When I want biased in depth critical analysis, I go to Rockets N'Stuff.

DaveR: Actually, it enhances the point. Even people who can't spell may be driven away.

Also note that the blog kcowing links to is constantly looking for writers (not sure I should link to the page) and doesn't require exclusive rights, so I don't know why people who responded to Nasa Watch's call for writers didn't realize there had already been an outlet for them. Maybe because they're not good researchers.