Trying A Little Too Hard To Be Hip (update)

I don't understand what that bloke is talking about. What is NASA doing?

Science communication is all about delivering complex concepts in an understandable, general way. It's not done by translating English into drivel.

Yikes.

I wouldn't usually lower myself to this level on this blog but I have to say it:

Johnny Alonzo is a [DELETED]. I am completely embarrassed for and ashamed of NASA for paying this guy. He should be on the Disney channel covering Miley Cyrus or on Perez Hilton covering Octomom.

What a shame.

An "accessible" blog like this could be done using a kooky weird scientist (thinking Bill Nye). This is more entertaining for children/teens/adults and more appropriate. Scratch that - appropriate, period. This Alonzo character is neither. I want to punch him.

To be clear: the last person who should be criticizing another's performance in front of a camera is me since I am convinced I look goofy every time I do it. Rather, I agree with you: my commentary is focused on this text, the fact that it was posted on an official NASA website, and that someone deemed this grammar-challenged, faux hip gibberish to be appropriate for posting in the first place.

Reading the whole thing, it didn't sound like he was trying too hard. Maybe that's the way he really talks, or maybe he thought those parts would be funny... either way it is entirely trivial, and you're the one who seems annoying, not to mention self-important, for publicly calling out the dude's communication skilZ.

@guymac: I think the key thing to remember is that this blog is entirely associated with NASA and as such it must abide by some standards. Although blogs are -- by their nature -- conversational, that doesn't mean that NASA should simply drop editorial control (or, indeed, guidelines) just to look "cool."

Text speak is used on platforms like Twitter and cell phone texting, not on a blog being used by a presenter that obviously has talent (otherwise, presumably he wouldn't be working for NASA) that represents the flagship space agency of the planet. "Outreach" doesn't mean "dumbing down", it means connecting. As it turns out, good spelling and grammar does a great job at doing the latter.

Guymac: so, as a taxpayer, I have no right to question what is posted on an official government website - especially when it is written in quasi-gibberish??

AS a member of the 20-something crowd who considers himself to be somewhat cool (of course, that depends on who you ask), I find this rather amusing. I'm used to reading internet chat lingo and the like, but this is just over the top.

True, the blog is rather trite. Comments will certainly continue about this blog, but the program itself is quite good. Has anyone else actually seen this program? The download quality is very good, and if you are a true NASA enthusiast I honestly cannot find a better program produced by NASA. Thankfully its not all Exploration! The NASA Ed Channel has a few nuggets of information, but 360 is very entertaining.

This is just a taste of your own medicine for decades of technobabble when publicly speaking. Part of the public disengagement from NASA is because of a language gap between the technical and non-technical. The only part the general public understands is "3.. 2.. 1.. main engines go, launch" - everything else is babble.

When you sit down to write for EPO (which this is), only two things matter:
* the target audience
* the message you want to convey, which may include real information ;-)

Most of the posts here (including Keith's) simply prove that the poster is not in the target audience. Neither am I (age 49). But here's what I'd like to know:
* who is in the target audience? (Is this example appealing to a broad enough audience to be worth it?)
* Is that target audience the best choice?
* Are they actually effective for that target audience?

AFAIK the message they're trying to convey is that cool stuff happens at NASA, and it's fun to visit. Is that an $18B message, i.e. fully justifying the national expenditure, even if only for a small fraction of the electorate?

Why bother addressing this topic, in light of other priorities? What's more is that we are imparting our personal perspectives on how (or how not) to best reach out to the public. This guy is right; it's easy to criticize like the armchair quarterback, calling all the right plays safely behind the screen.

Editor's note: "Safely behind the screen"? Hmm. .. I use my real name - and I am easy to find - and yet you are "John Glenn's Dog"?

Indeed I am....Bark!

You make a fair point though: I am as well behind a screen calling the shots, and go one further.

Echoing what TechBoi said, as someone in their mid-twenties, it seems like this post is pitched at the level of 13-15 year olds. At least, those are the only people who use that sort of slang online. No one college age or up would write like this.

That being said, I think that it's only really problematic because people have pretty incredible noses for sniffing out people who are faking a vernacular of the language (which I assume is the case here). If Alonso really writes like that, more power to him - but I doubt that a 39 year-old does. Instead, this comes off as fake and I believe works against the intention of the author (getting younger people involved).