“Mysterious radio signals from deep space detected” (complete with ‘Artwork’) Hubble loses best camera but discovers brightest ever quasar. (a ‘first the bad news, then the good news’ story? lol) Ancient stars crystalise into twinkling diamond-like spheres, scientists show for first time (complete with more Artwork ) NASA satellite spots new planet 23 times heavier than Earth (complete with 'a conceptual illustration' Hey, it makes a change from 'Artwork'? ) Dying star sheds light on spin of supermassive black hole. Black hole spotted by NASA provides new insight into evolution of myserious space bodies. NASA asteroid WARNING: A giant 127ft space rock will barrel past Earth TONIG . . . Oh I can't be bothered with any more of this *****!
I didn't make it up, they're all headlines on Google News - which is why I mentioned it . . . so that nobody was stupid enough to think I'd er, made them up? I take it that you are able to access the Google News site?
Is there a particular point you are trying to make? These are all actual news stories..... Space stuff is usually only interesting to people who enjoy the field. And it's not like every news story is going to be some massive discovery. It's no different than normal news, all news outlets publish front page headlines multiple times per day and it's not like all of them are actually "front page news!". They have to put something up there....it's news. The only real "front page breaking news" from space that the general public would care about would be "Space Agency finds concrete irrefutable evidence of life outside of Earth". The majority of people aren't going to care what NASA or ESA is doing outside of that...That doesn't mean news isn't actually happening though.
That's not an excuse. Google News isn't a source of science. That is part of the popular press. Plus, you can't read one site and then assume you understand the issue. We as an entire sociiety need to get beyond this idea that if we read something somewhere then it must be true. Plus we need to remember that impressions we get from the popular press could be misinterpretations by ourselves as well.
DUH! We all know that; but the fact remains that the thrust of the reportage is sourced from the space agencies, especially NASA, you must surely agree with that? What I'd also like to ask you is WHY the popular press dumb it down: I happen to believe it's to do with the ongoing dumbing down project, but you et al are so obsessed and want so much to believe that you can't come to terms with it, but instead slag me off for pointing it out. For instance, what about this . . . "Nasa's New Horizons: Best image yet of 'space snowman' Ultima Thule" The New Horizons probe has sent back its best picture yet of the small, icy object Ultima Thule, which it flew past on New Year's Day. {Did it really? Well if they say so - how could anybody else possibly know! My insert.} The image was acquired when the Nasa spacecraft was just 6,700km from its target, which scientists think is two bodies lightly fused together - giving the look of a snowman.End quote. I mean puhlease?? And this isn't from some wacky space magazine, it's from the 'respected' BBC, so why do you think they've dumbed it down, Will, if it isn't to infantilize the readers? 'giving it the look of a snowman' ffs! I also noticed this in the text: "Surface details are now much clearer." Ah, good ol' Photoshop - what would they do without it?? Please get a grip, Will, your self respect will be so much better for it?? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-47000888
