How journalists write 'balanced' shuttle articles -- like watching sausages and laws being made?

I sent this note to Peter Pae at the LA Times, I -THINK- he was the guy who
telephoned me yesterday about an article he was working on... Will update as
needed.
Jim O



Was this the article you called me for yesterday, for comments and research?

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...44981,full.sto
ry?coll=la-home-headlines

And when I asked you if you didn't already have the editorial slant of the
news story already picked out,
and were not just seeking quotations from people who could be called
experts, who already agreed with you,
you vigorously denied it and assured me you were still investigating the
question?

But I could tell you were growing increasingly uncomfortable with the
responses I was giving you,
and then found an excuse to 'gotta run' and hang up on me, and never call me
back like you said,
so it's no surprise the story turned out the way it did.

Well, you wasted some of my time, but you did entertain me with your idea of
a
what constitutes a balanced, insightful piece.

It's a fair swap.

Jim Oberg
Houston, Texas
www.jamesoberg.com

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
. ..
I sent this note to Peter Pae at the LA Times, I -THINK- he was the guy
who
telephoned me yesterday about an article he was working on... Will update
as
needed.

Was this the article you called me for yesterday, for comments and
research?


http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...44981,full.sto
ry?coll=la-home-headlines

Well, you wasted some of my time, but you did entertain me with your idea
of
a
what constitutes a balanced, insightful piece.

I see that he quoted John Pike in the article:

John Pike, head of GlobalSecurity.org, an Alexandria, Va.-based space
and
military think tank, said NASA's jubilation ignored deeper safety
problems.

"They are all on happy pills," he said of the space agency.

But later he's quoted as saying:

But Pike, of GlobalSecurity.org, said NASA might now be too cautious, as
evidenced by the agency's decision to forgo a landing attempt in Florida
early Monday morning because of low clouds.

This appears to be a direct contradiction of his earlier quote. Are they
all on happy pills (implying that they "ignored deeper safety problems"), or
are they too cautious?

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping on
the issues in order to do so?

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:13:07 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I see that he quoted John Pike in the article:

No ignorant article in the MSM is complete without a quote from John.

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping on
the issues in order to do so?

It's not just you.

It's both of you, and you're both wrong. For example, John Pike was one
of the few "independent" Challenger investigators who woodenly
supported Rogers' O-ring cause. John was no more reasonable and
scientific about a balanced, unbiased investigation than Bill Rogers.
(Certain members of the Commission who talked with me *were* a bit more
reasonable, however.)

John Pike was at the helm of the Federation of American Scientists when
I spoke to him about my prelaunch Senate warnings and an alternate
cause. That was in the fall of 1986, and I had just received support
(based on substantiated evidence) from a Senate candidate running
against Chuck Grassley. You can still read all about Pike's opinionated
support for NASA at www.fas.org, even though John has since turned with
more open eyes to a different pasture.

I genuinely would like to believe that NASA made Discovery's landing
decision based on the old rule of 'better safe than sorry.' However,
NASA did not mute key voices during the crucial part of the descent for
Columbia. When NASA did so for Discovery, it made one wonder if NASA
had decided on Edwards for other than safety reasons (e.g., for further
ISS delay or in case of a catastrophe unexplainable by "foam
shedding").

Similarly, I have a few questions about Discovery's debris photos which
I expect never to be answered. I suspect certain photos were floated
very briefly at critical junctures for strictly disinformation
purposes. Obviously both RTFs to date were intended to "vindicate"
partisan Commission conclusions.

In summary, NASA should shed its two-faced media approach. On the one
hand we have NASA insisting that Discovery was a "test flight," while
on the other hand we all saw multiple attempts to land her
operationally on Kennedy's runway.

Challenger's Ghost

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:13:07 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I see that he quoted John Pike in the article:

No ignorant article in the MSM is complete without a quote from John.

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping on
the issues in order to do so?

It's not just you.

On 2005-08-10, Jeff Findley wrote:

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping on
the issues in order to do so?

I was quite taken by "acid SRB rain dissolves cars at KSC" from him...

--
-Andrew Gray

Rand Simberg wrote:
On 10 Aug 2005 14:03:56 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I see that he quoted John Pike in the article:

No ignorant article in the MSM is complete without a quote from John.

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping on
the issues in order to do so?

It's not just you.

It's both of you, and you're both wrong. For example, John Pike was one
of the few "independent" Challenger investigators who woodenly
supported Rogers' O-ring cause. John was no more reasonable and
scientific about a balanced, unbiased investigation than Bill Rogers.
(Certain members of the Commission who talked with me *were* a bit more
reasonable, however.)

snip

Sorry, Maxson, but no matter how much (even) you tell me that you
disagree with John Pike, I'm still not going to agree with him.

What I told you was that John hasn't always "come out against NASA's
manned spaceflight program at every opportunity." If you want to change
the subject, be my guest. However, I have only fleeting interest in
which of his positions (even) you may or may not agree with.

Challenger's Ghost

"Andrew Gray" wrote in message
. ..
On 2005-08-10, Jeff Findley wrote:

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping
on
the issues in order to do so?

I was quite taken by "acid SRB rain dissolves cars at KSC" from him...

I believe this is based on a historical incident where the wind, etc. blew a
lot of stuff onto the cars parked in the VAB parking lot.



--
-Andrew Gray

On 10 Aug 2005 14:03:56 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I see that he quoted John Pike in the article:

No ignorant article in the MSM is complete without a quote from John.

Is it just me, or does John Pike seems to come out against NASA's manned
spaceflight program at every opportunity, even if it means flip-flopping on
the issues in order to do so?

It's not just you.

It's both of you, and you're both wrong. For example, John Pike was one
of the few "independent" Challenger investigators who woodenly
supported Rogers' O-ring cause. John was no more reasonable and
scientific about a balanced, unbiased investigation than Bill Rogers.
(Certain members of the Commission who talked with me *were* a bit more
reasonable, however.)

snip

Sorry, Maxson, but no matter how much (even) you tell me that you
disagree with John Pike, I'm still not going to agree with him.

Jim Oberg wrote:

Was this the article you called me for yesterday, for comments and research?

http://www.latimes.com/news/science/...44981,full.sto
ry?coll=la-home-headlines

some of the quotes were a little sarcastic, but I didn't see anything at
all off the mark, Jim.

And I also haven't seen you get that snide and defensive in a long time.
This guy really hit a nerve, eh?


--
Terrell Miller


"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:07:50 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Sorry, Maxson, but no matter how much (even) you tell me that you
disagree with John Pike, I'm still not going to agree with him.

Is that the same John Pike that I see interviewed or quoted as a
military analyst from globalsecurity.org ?

-- David