English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

The state of our nation and its media is disappointing. Today they have shown their true colors. One of the most spectacular events of mankind occured tonight and there was minimal coverage. However, if there was a problem the would have been swarming and eager to have the heads of everyone at NASA. Remember they stopped all other TV for the first launch and landing after the Columbia disaster as they chomped at the bit for another problem. Has our nation become this bloodthirsty? Or do ratings matter more than history? Why don't the American people demand more of the people who deliver our history?

2006-12-09 15:35:18 · 13 answers · asked by Texan Pete 3 in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

13 answers

It is sad that we rely upon a ratings based media to bring us our history to the T.V.'s in our homes and the papers on our door steps. Because your going to see and read about what most people want to hear and that's anythings that bad. People are more concerned about who Tom Cruise is going to merry, or who molested a child then who the people are that are making history for mankind.

It makes you wonder about the people who sit and watch and read about people doing horrible things, if they deplore these people so much then why do they like to watch and read about it all day?

2006-12-09 16:21:37 · answer #1 · answered by soul_plus_heart_equals_man 4 · 0 0

that is pathetic. in all likelihood celeb gossip and pre-election hypothesis have been given an entire mot greater coverage. regrettably, it variety of feels we now not have any administration over the media, that's often owned by using a few self-fascinated firms. there is not any accountability, and in many case no attempt is made to grant the reality, or a minimum of an independent dialogue of something. Ranting and concern-mongering are provided as information. I went exterior a couple of minutes in the past, and that i observed what appeared like a huge call shifting very slowly. that is too city right here to be waiting to verify a satellite tv for pc, so i assumed possibly it became into the commute. as quickly as I went to NASA's internet site, I observed it became into shifting over an area that did not appear as if right here.

2016-10-18 01:16:01 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I recall that after the US made it to the moon the media basically dropped coverage of the latter missions. They only got interested in covering Apollo 13 after it got in trouble. Before that incident most of the coverage was dropped by the networks. By the time 16 and 17 rolled around, you were lucky to see an hour or two summary at the end of the day.

2006-12-09 15:42:13 · answer #3 · answered by Gene 7 · 1 0

Good point. However, it was live on NASA tv and webcast. That's where I watched it.

Eh, you don't want to hear the newscasters trying to explain it. On ABC a few years ago, one of the anchors did a 20-sec story on a new scientific discovery, then turned to the other anchor and said 'I don't have a clue what I was just talking about!' Why was that ok for her to say? What would have happened if she had been doing a story about the middle east and said instead 'I don't have a clue where that is!' Wouldn't she have been fired? Stupid double standards.

2006-12-09 15:54:25 · answer #4 · answered by eri 7 · 0 0

It's even surprising that they didn't do this because it was a Saturday night after sweeps, usually the lowest rated period of the year. Saturdays already have the weakest ratings of the week. Maybe some affiliates did so it live. Not every station has to air what the network tells them too.

2006-12-09 18:38:10 · answer #5 · answered by gregory_dittman 7 · 0 0

Henry David Thoreau probably said it best (160 years ago) when he remarked that, "People tend to get pretty much the kind of Government that they deserve." And that observation extends quite logically to news coverage as well.

The American people have become, for the most part, 'sheeple' waiting for some αsshole such as Al ('I invented the Internet) Gore to stampede them in some direction or other.

And you're quite correct, it *is* sad.


Doug

2006-12-09 15:45:23 · answer #6 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 0 0

I remember when the shuttle blew up in 2003, I was watching it on the news (Only because I live in Texas, and it was flying over us) When it exploded, we got a warning up on the screen, because debris was falling in and around our area.

The media today is violent, why? Because we like violence as long as it isn't us.

I would have loved to have seen the shuttle take off tonight.

2006-12-09 16:23:45 · answer #7 · answered by Allen M 1 · 0 0

Sad doesn't begin to cover it.

I watched the post-launch press conference on NASA-TV. There were many intelligent questions. However, the only question NBC asked was, "How can you justify the expense of the space program?" It's a valid question; that's not the problem. It is, however, the only question that S.O.B. asked.

2006-12-09 15:50:23 · answer #8 · answered by Otis F 7 · 1 0

Positive events such as the launch equal no ratings in essence who cares other than me and you.

An explosion equals violence and loss of life which gives the media someones life to make miserable.

We are truly in a sad state.

2006-12-09 15:42:06 · answer #9 · answered by the answer23 1 · 2 0

Yes...but I remeber where I was when the shuttle blew up, years ago. In a classroom full of 8-year-old kids. That was a tough one to explain. Perhaps it's kinder not to show it live- although it does demonstrate a disturbing lack of faith on the part of our media outlets, in our space program, hmmm? ;)

2006-12-09 15:44:24 · answer #10 · answered by leopardstripes 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers