Reading the headlines, I would have no idea what happened yesterday at the SpaceX launch

[sekker]

Go ahead, do it yourself. I'll wait.

What did MSN say?

What about NPR?

Are they about the same topic? I think so.

Do they draw the same conclusions? Keep in mind, this is about a physical object and its capabilities. Anything stated CAN be fact-checked.

Quite the contrary.

As someone who watched the event live and from two different feeds with experts, I feel comfortable making the observation that MSN was literally selling an entirely inaccurate (in terms of context) view of the launch yesterday.

NPR did a great job, explaining the mission and that the launch achieved all key goals. But that there is more to be designed and tested before the launch system is ready for real payloads.

I've come to the conclusion, and posting here, that this is as clear a tangible example of the dollars-for-clicks dramatically changing news as covered by modern commercial agencies.

I sure hope NPR is going to stick around, I will be doubling my annual contribution!

[vision63]

sekker wrote:
Go ahead, do it yourself. I'll wait.

What did MSN say?

What about NPR?

Are they about the same topic? I think so.

Do they draw the same conclusions? Keep in mind, this is about a physical object and its capabilities. Anything stated CAN be fact-checked.

Quite the contrary.

As someone who watched the event live and from two different feeds with experts, I feel comfortable making the observation that MSN was literally selling an entirely inaccurate (in terms of context) view of the launch yesterday.

NPR did a great job, explaining the mission and that the launch achieved all key goals. But that there is more to be designed and tested before the launch system is ready for real payloads.

I've come to the conclusion, and posting here, that this is as clear a tangible example of the dollars-for-clicks dramatically changing news as covered by modern commercial agencies.

I sure hope NPR is going to stick around, I will be doubling my annual contribution!

Well, it's just part and parcel consequence of a medium that has to raise money through advertisements versus donations/grants.

[gabester]

I haven't bothered with the headlines since I watched the event itself.

I question the value of "reporting" when we are able to bear witness directly to events.

That's not to say there's no value in news editorializing, as the layperson may not know what to make of this 3rd attempt / failure to land the Starship and booster.

Actually I missed the bit about the propellant tank transfer... what happened there?

We need a new way to fund news and analysis; obviously the commercialization of the industry is an utter failure that delivers negative value for the perpetuation of the civilization which requires open conveyance of information and rational discourse on its meaning.

[Tiangou]

Problem?

[Filliam H. Muffman]

I went to MSN.com and entered [SpaceX launch], it autofilled Starship. All the results (bing) were other site's stories. I'm pretty sure they don't have reporters or an editorial board any more.

Google [site:msn.com SpaceX Starship launch] gave results from 5 hr to 1 day. All seemed to be quotes with attribution, or AI clones of those stories.

At least for the time being, MSN can be useful for when you want the majority of a NYT/WaPo story (or post a link to same) without having to worry about subscriptions.

[cbelt3]

Starship made space, almost near LEO. Opened and closed the launching bay doors. Reentry failed. All in all a good test flight.

[sekker]

Tiangou wrote:
Problem?

You have a good selection of sources, especially Axios and LiveScience.

I note that the LiveScience headline literally starts with a failure outcome ('lost in Indian Ocean'), which was actually the expected outcome - this was not an attempt to recover the test vehicle. So I would score as 'misleading'.

The NYT headline is surprisingly good, has been hit-or-miss over SpaceX.

Note the USA Today headline doesn't really give an outcome, despite the clear success noted in the other headlines.

The MSN headlines and related - here's one just now:

'SpaceX Starship disintegrates after completing most of third test flight'

Not only do they lead with a clear negative outcome, it's actually not clear that's what happened. Yes, there is an assumed RUD, but last I checked, we do not know that. An accurate headline would have been, 'SpaceX Starship third test flight completes all mission objectives including reaching orbit for the first time.'

[sekker]

gabester wrote:
Actually I missed the bit about the propellant tank transfer... what happened there?

Propellant tank transfer is a future flight objective, I believe. Will need to have two Starship launches to have both source and destination tanks in orbit at the same time.

[sekker]

gabester wrote:
We need a new way to fund news and analysis; obviously the commercialization of the industry is an utter failure that delivers negative value for the perpetuation of the civilization which requires open conveyance of information and rational discourse on its meaning.

Yes. And I am starting to think even NYT or WPO (which depend on subscriber fees) are not immune. Plenty of questionable material on NYT - I have a subscription in my house but get frustrated reading.

That's why I'm starting to think the way is NPR and related orgs like PBS.

[vision63]

sekker wrote:
[quote=Tiangou]
Problem?

You have a good selection of sources, especially Axios and LiveScience.

I note that the LiveScience headline literally starts with a failure outcome ('lost in Indian Ocean'), which was actually the expected outcome - this was not an attempt to recover the test vehicle. So I would score as 'misleading'.

The NYT headline is surprisingly good, has been hit-or-miss over SpaceX.

Note the USA Today headline doesn't really give an outcome, despite the clear success noted in the other headlines.

The MSN headlines and related - here's one just now:

'SpaceX Starship disintegrates after completing most of third test flight'

Not only do they lead with a clear negative outcome, it's actually not clear that's what happened. Yes, there is an assumed RUD, but last I checked, we do not know that. An accurate headline would have been, 'SpaceX Starship third test flight completes all mission objectives including reaching orbit for the first time.'
The media gets so much very wrong, why would we expect them to get this right?