60 Minutes and Hubble

[nebularain]

I happened to flip onto the end part of 60 Minute tonight, and they were in the doing a segment on the Hubble Telescope! One thing that bothers me though. Everytime I see a documentary on the Hubble, they of course mention the faulty lens that was in place originally, and how it rendered the telescope "blind" and all of that. How come they always fail to mention that the flaw did not effect every function Hubble could perform, that viable pictures were still being taken, that the telescope was not rendered useless during the time before the lens was fixed?

My former next door neighbor actually worked as part of the Hubble team down in Goddard, and he showed us copies of some of these viable pictures that Hubble had taken during the initial years. So, what gives?

[The Bad Astronomer]

When it was found to be flawed, there was a lot of pressure to put out good images and get science from the 'scope. Even though the images weren't as nice, there was still quite a bit of press about the science. Heh- I got my PhD on pre-COSTAR data.

I liked the segment; I happened to surf into it to. Zolt Levay is an old friend of mine. For those of you who read my newsletter, Tiffany, the woman who did the Hoag's object Hubble image last month, worked with Zolt all summer.

I also liked the ending. Mario Livio is a good guy, and his point about Hubble giving us the Universe is a good one. Despite the problems, Hubble has brought the beauty of the sky home to more people than any other telescope in history.

[honestmonkey]

The thing that bugged me most about the show was the typical reporter questions that went something like this: "You've spent ten bucks on a search for knowledge instead of giving it to some needy person so they can get a burger. How can you sleep at night?"

This always supposes a false dichotomy (that we can't spend money on both scientific pursuits and helping the needy). It also supposes that by "spending money in space", we are somehow wasting it. The interviewer asked, several times, "is it worth it?".

Luckily, the science stood up well, even through the lousy interviewer and bad editing.

[Jim]

This always supposes a false dichotomy (that we can't spend money on both scientific pursuits and helping the needy). It also supposes that by "spending money in space", we are somehow wasting it. The interviewer asked, several times, "is it worth it?".

It also presupposes that any money not spent on science [i/]will[/i] be spent on the needy. This is not only not necessarily true, but is almost certainly false. We have allocated all the funds we consider necessary and proper to help the needy; if we stop spending on Hubble, that doesn't mean we'll automatically divert those funds to the needy.

Also, it ignores the old "Give a man a fish - Teach a man to fish" allegory. Spending money to feed and clothe the needy is a good thing, but it only feeds and clothes them as long as the funding lasts. Spending money on science helps create new jobs - even new industries - and those jobs will do more to eliminate the problems of the needy longterm.

But then, reporters make their livings finding stories... even where they don't exist.

[honestmonkey]

Jim - Yeah, you're preaching to the choir here. I thought that, for the most part, the 60 minutes show followed "normal" science reporting. "I'm a big fancy reporter who doesn't have a clue what the hell you're talking about, so to 'make it more interesting', I'm going to imply that it's a waste of money that could instead be used to help people, regardless of any actually facts to the contrary."

Hey, at least they showed a bunch of cool pictures.

[Dragon9]

Even if an expensive scientific research project produced nothing more valuable than some cool pictures, it still gets people excited about learning and discovery, and that's the biggest social and economic payoff you could ask for.

[overrated]

Let's not get too carried away bashing the press here. Why isn't "is it worth it?" a legitimate question to ask, given the cost (and early problems) of the HST? I agree that most TV news shows get carried away with trying to make things more sensational, but I think it's not unreasonable to question the worth of a hugely expensive project. And the answer is easy: Yes, and here's why.... (all the reasons listed in this thread)

[honestmonkey]

On 2002-10-22 20:45, overrated wrote:
Let's not get too carried away bashing the press here. Why isn't "is it worth it?" a legitimate question to ask, given the cost (and early problems) of the HST?

It may be a valid question in some instances, but not necessarily in all instances. Asking the question implies the reporter did research into what things are worth. That is, how much science was done, even with a "broken" Hubble? What did that knowledge gain us? Were any of the pictures really cool? How did the spending on the Hubble compare to military spending, or spending on cigarettes or cheap hamburgers? Are these comparisons even valid, and what would a valid comparison be?

The question is often presented in the form of "There are people starving to death, and yet you spend billions on a broken telescope." This is not a valid comparison in my mind. Often the first part is merely implied, and from the reporting I've seen, it is almost always implied in some way. The thought is "We are wasting money investing in science when we could be helping people."

I don't think the question was valid as part of the story, at least not without a lot more background than was given in the show.

We, as a country, have in general, decided that knowledge is a good thing, and that in some cases actually worth spending money on. Almost all knowledge ends up benefitting people in the long run. Scientists did not run out and rob people for the money to build the Hubble, people gave willingly with their tax dollars, controlled by their vote.

The "was it worth it" question was a cheap shot by an unimaginative reporter. I mean, look at all the cool pictures!

[Russ]

On 2002-10-22 20:45, overrated wrote:
Let's not get too carried away bashing the press here.

You imply that it is possible to get carried away bashing the press. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif[/img] I posit to this discussion that "The Press" in all it's forms is in need of bashing and hounding and constant vigilance. This should continue until there is no room in the universe for a yellow press, sensation mongering rag of a television show like "60 Minutes" and its' clones. It should continue until every editor/producer/reporter/cameraperson measures the truth of their product with scientific skepticism.

(steps off soap box and puts on flame retardant coveralls)

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] In case you haddn't noticed, I've lost most of my sense of humor about the quality of the news media here in the USA.

[CJSF]

I agree with Russ. I can't even stand to watch the TV news. I was walking past a TV we have here at work and I heard this incredibly stirring martial score (musical) and stopped to look. Graphic text with crosshairs and all ominously faded in from black "The Search for the Sniper". I'm fed up with the entertainment profferd by the news media. If it isn't ratings worthy, it's not carried by the mainstream media. A good example is the coverage of all the poor kids kidnapped this past year in the US. The fact is that there haven't been any more kidnappings than "typical" this year. The press latched on to kidnappings after a relatively high profile child of a weatlthy family was missing. What followed then was a string of stories on missing kids because that's what hooked audiences.

Dirty press.

CJSF

[overrated]

Well, okay, keep in mind that I'm not saying that Hubble WASN'T worth all the money and effort put into it. It certainly was.

I'm just saying that the reporter asking one person "was it worth it?" is legitmate. All that one person has to do is say "Yes. It was worth it because we saw things in the universe we had never seen before. The images Hubble sent back--even the "blurry" ones--helped us understand science in previously impossible ways. It benefits humankind... how can you put a price tag on that?"

And then it is abundantly clear that, whether or not the question was dumb, the answer was profound and decisive.

As far as the press being worthy of ridicule, I will go so far as to say that TV journalism has really declined since, say, the days of Walter Cronkite.

However, many people would argue (and have argued) that it is the public's demand for news that has shaped the supply of it. Shorter pieces, attention-grabbing catchphrases... if it weren't popular, USAToday wouldn't be in every freaking hotel room in the U.S.

Having said that, I think that print journalism gets bashed mainly because no one agrees with what it prints. And that, I think, is a sign that the papers are doing their jobs--you don't WANT anyone to think you're taking your side.

So, in short: The media play a vital part in civic life; television news is sagging; and I like the HST.

[nebularain]

Well, the problem is not whether or not the question was legitimate, the problem was the way he asked it, and that he asked it more than once! Like honostmonkey stated, he seemed to be giving a subtle bias against spending all that money on Hubble. Or maybe he was emphasizing it for the sake of those who actually do feel that way without it necessarily reflecting his own opinion.

But, minus that, and minus the fact that they accused Hubble of being "blind" until the lens got fixed, it was a very well-done documentary on the Hubble.

_________________
"But I can see the Covenant colors [that] the sun and the rain have woven against the blue of the sky"
- Rich Mullins, The Howling

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: nebularain on 2002-10-24 00:37 ]</font>

[beskeptical]

I missed the segment, I'm avoiding the news until they get over the sniper thing. 20,000 deaths a year from the flu virus, how many thousand deaths from vehicle accidents, not to mention the incredibly high homocide rate WA DC has normally, and they have literally 24 hour a day coverage on the sniper.

But as far as the question of cost of the Hubble, it might have been newsworthy, but it seems absurd to me that in marketing the news instead of reporting it, everything has to be scandalous. Reporters seem to be unable to find news in a story unless there is a scandal or immediate excitement associated with the story.

I think the public is gettng so burned out on 'breaking news' and all the other broken records reporters spew out constantly, more and more people are tuning out.

I would think someone could write decent science news that was interesting without being squished into the tired format of 'government wastes billions on Hubble mistake'.

Taking what the BA said it sounds like they tried but just couldn't help themselves and had to ask the scandal question. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[honestmonkey]

Maybe if they juiced up the news about it...

Scientists are trying to track down a virus believed responsible for over 50 deaths yesterday. They virus, shown here in this exclusive News 8 photo, is thought to have killed it's victims buy using the victim's own body to replicate itself, causing failures in victims' vital organs. While citizens can take steps to protect themselves, scientists believe the virus will go on killing until they can find a way to stop it.

In other news, police are on the lookout for this machine and others like it, alledgedly called 'automobiles', for questioning in the deaths of hundreds of people last week. "It's awful. These machines seem to target people at random," an authority from the police department stated.