19 Dec '13 23:27>
Originally posted by SoothfastIt would help if the media actually reported stories accurately.
In fact, we can watch as massive quantities of humanitarian aid are poured into a Third World country, only to see it vanish into the coffers of a corrupt government or rival warlords. As you say, resources are there to eradicate poverty, but bad policy and poor planning squanders it all. Are we to believe that launching space stations into orbit is some ...[text shortened]... don't think these things through. I suppose NASA could do better in the public education arena.
More scientists might like talking about their work if they thought their was a
half decent chance that it would be reported accurately. And that they wouldn't
have to spend the next few months trying to correct the misreporting and
salvage their reputations.
I just watched the BBC butcher a story about the Gaia space telescope... saying
that our current map of the sky is based on a few hundred stars...
No our current map is based on the Hipparcos satellite that mapped 118,000 stars
and the Tycho-2 catalogue of 2.5 million stars.
I mean seriously, how hard is it to get your basic facts right?
And this is the BBC ffs.
Just taking Hipparcos into account they were three orders of magnitude out.
And that was far from the only error, or gross oversimplification they had...
But they had some pretty computer graphics.
If they spent half the time it took to make the pretty pictures checking their facts
they wouldn't have completely botched the story.
But apparently accurate reporting isn't any sort of priority.