Faux News Update

Having read the "Columbia Journalism Review" article, it appears to be as much a political rant and an critique of the Fox article. Why bring into the discussion "global warming". A journalism school is in NO position to take a position on the subject.

In the end, it's nothing more than left-wing histrionics!

Why bring into the discussion "global warming". A journalism school is in NO position to take a position on the subject.

I doubt that you even read the article. Global Warning Denial and other right-wing positions were mentioned only in the context of the experience and background of so-called space policy experts quoted in the Fox piece. In fact, this article is quite good. It provides a lesson on good journalism, and how to question the credibility of supposed expert sources, which are usually nothing but charlatans, as in the Fox piece.

More of the same BS political propaganda, just this time it is from the Left. If the shuttle is "deteriorating" then why are there so many knowledgeable people behind continued flights beyond those currently planned? I can only assume that a journalism student is simply using words to evoke emotions. Talk about deteriorating!

Somebody failed at critical reading here. There is no position on global warming being taken here.

Just be thankful things like the Hatch Act are in existence, otherwise you'd might see me and my colleagues taking a dump on these suppossed right-wing "rocket scientists".

Why bring in global warming? Because it indicates that a source who also denies global warming is willing to ignore science when making statements, that's why. It speaks of the credibility of the source, and is well within the journalistic realm and thus fair game for the Journalism Review.

You don't like it simply because it refutes your world view.

The name of the publication is Columbia Journalism Review. That implies its focus is on journalism itself and how well it's being done. This is a deconstruction of bad journalism.

By taking the time to check facts and sources, CJR have exposed how incredibly sloppy and deliberately slanted the original FN article was. It wasn't news, it was Koprowski's pure opinion, uninformed and poorly defended.

Let me put this another way: any journalist worthy of the title, regardless of political bent, should be appalled at the FN article. FN should have retracted it entirely, or sloughed it off to an "opinion" blog so they could disavow it.

The Bolsheviks were infamous for saying "everything is political". Unfortunately the left-wing in this country have adopted it as their mantra. And, regrettably, applied it to NASA!

I love the comment that the Chinese "accidentally" shot a satellite. That's an interesting way to put that they very openly tested an anti-sat weapon that could possibly have no other purpose than popping a sat, just as we did all the way back in the 80s.

No cover-up. Just catch-up.

How do you spot a weasel? They want you to be afraid of everything.

That's an interesting way to look at the situation. Fox is deliberately giving unchallenged voice to any lie if it happens to suggest the president is a wanker. They even found a scientist to say "Ares I has been tested already". Seriously!

Next they'll be saying Obama had the AF shoot down santa.

Say that "everything is political" is just a left wing mantra is ridiculous. several factors go into human space flight and NASA.

1 Public interest
2 Money
3 Political gain

If one or all of those are weak. Nasa gets no funding or new programs approved plain and simple.

In American Politics the left and the right all the play the game to stay in the game.

Another Fact : Every Administration since Apollo 18 and 19 were canceled has use Nasa and its various agencies as a budget cutting whipping post. So to blame the loss of HSF in America to just the Obama administration is Non-factual and at its base an out right lie.

Keith, go back to school!
You don't know "Oh" from "zero" and you can't even spell Fox half the time.

Editor's note: you need a dictionary. "Faux" is a word they never taught you in jr. high school. I guess

Because Republicans are never political.

Yet the are free to state that the Shuttle is "deteriorating", when that in no way true. In fact the orbiters are maintained expertly and are in excellent condition, having only flown approximately a quarter of their design life.

With these maintenance requirements, system checks, modifications and upgrades, this "journalistic review" chose to use a totally subjective term in its own right without any details to back it up.

It further goes on to say handing all near-term launch operations to the Russians may save lives, also a completely subjective statement. Finally it ignores the broader economic impacts that a small investment in the Shuttle Program, approximately 0.08% of the Federal budget, would prevent and the overall net loss to the economy that will likely result as thousands of jobs are lost without anything in the near-term to replace them with. Indeed, I guess it is easier to just say give it to the Russians and blame Fox News.

Even thought my politics and FN may co-inside, this is undoubtedly BAD journalism.

It's a shame because I think the case could have been made, in a journalistic-ally credible manner, that the BO space policy is at best misguided and at worst intentionally destructive.

I have to agree with you that "deteriorating" is inaccurate, at least beyond what is normal in any vehicle.

However, to give the author the benefit of the doubt, the decision to discontinue the Shuttle program was based largely on an assessment, borne out of the Columbia investigation, that Shuttle is unacceptably risky. Not because of "deterioration" as the author implied, but because of fundamental design vulnerabilities.

I'm not going to judge that evaluation - the latest improvements in process may have led to a substantial increase in mean time between catastrophic failure. But it's important to recognize that the reasons for Shuttle cancellation went beyond freeing up money for Constellation.

jski-

I suspect our political views differ, but I applaud the opinion expressed in your post regarding bad journalism. Though I support the BO space policy, I welcome reasoned debate - even with views like yours that counter my own. All too often - NASAWatch included - the debates are emotional and speculative. Even if media outlets lean one way or the other, they have a responsibility to report responsibly. Arguments based on good research and fact-checking are simply more persuasive.

Paul is right, except for the "deteriorating" comment, the "Columbia Journalism Review" bit is actually way above average for non-space journalism sources.

There is nothing wrong with one news source ripping apart another, and Faux deserves it. People are just getting emotional about it because they are fussing about something NASAWatch readers live every day.

If there is one thing for sure about news outlets, it is that they never get everything right for the people that live and breath a topic. You can see this in all the big papers and websites that have been trying to sort out the topic of NASA's proposed change in direction.

I've been in numerous careers and activities since college that make it into the news once in a while, and every single time I've been disappointed in how much what is reported departs from the real story that news sources were trying to explain. This one is no different.

I'll give you 25 cents each for "deteriorating" and Soyuz launch safety; they were overstated at best, wrong at worst. I also agree with Paul's point on what CJR should have said instead of "deteriorating". But I think it's $1 each for the other points made by CJR about Koprowski's journalistic abuse.

I still dispute your point about raising the money to stay the course -- not because I contest your numbers but because in the present political environment, I think you're overestimating ANYONE's ability to push through even a few $B for so few jobs saved -- particularly to undo damage that was locked in 5 years ago. Canceling STS was a deliberate decision whose consequences we have seen coming for a long time. Maybe Congress was in denial about the STS workforce problem, or maybe hoping someone would champion a bailout at the last second. The 2008 financial crisis scotched that. This year it would have taken implausible heroics to fix that problem, much less the CxP schedule problem. Obama decided instead to buy some cod liver oil.