NASA safety controversy

(Cross posted)

You know how you're always saying you wish journalists weren't so stupid? Yeah, me too.

At my news organization (American Public Media/Minnesota Public Radio), we have an initiative that we started where we depend on the knowledge of the audience to inform the coverage. It's called Public Insight Journalism. We use it to evaluate potential stories and to be more informed before we even decide whether stories are worth doing.

Today, I got a message from the unit. They're trying to get information on NASA's alleged refusal to release safety statistics.

If you have knowledge to share -- note: this isn't if you have an OPINION to share, this is if you have KNOWLEDGE to share -- they've set up a form here.
http://www.publicradio.org/public_insight_network/forms/cij/form_display.php?form_code=0df36707631b

Thanks

Hmm...

Public Insight Journalism? Is that like Wikipedia?

No, actually it's not but if you'd like to read more about it, you can go here.

Isn't the idea here that the survey, done (as a part?) of making aviation more safe for the public, will serve no other purpose but to scare the public and make economic losses for airliners when maid public? All in all, the effect will be the opposite of the initial purpose? Afterall, safety does not come without a cost.

But then again, if less people fly, then less people are likely to be killed/hurt in an accident. hmmm

People are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. There's this subtext in conversations like this that they're stupid and unable to process information. People, as a general rule, aren't stupid. And one of these days it would be nice if government -- and the media -- would begin to understand that.

I'm pretty much capable of making good decisions and I've noticed over my 53 years that the more information I have, the better that decision is likely to be.

Ignorance is ignorance and no amount of lipstick will make it knowledge.

Bob Collins said:

People are a lot smarter than most people give them credit for. There's this subtext in conversations like this that they're stupid and unable to process information. People, as a general rule, aren't stupid. And one of these days it would be nice if government -- and the media -- would begin to understand that...

Click to expand...

I found your comment very interesting. I too am 53, but for me, it seems the older I get the more I’m struck by people’s stupidity.

Over the years I’ve read poll after poll that indicates with reasonable accuracy, so I’m told, that a large percentage and in some cases a majority of people;

Can’t find Canada (or name any huge country) on a map.
Haven’t a clue as to how their government works, let alone who their representative’s are.
Do not believe in evolution.
On the right many believe Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11.
On the left many (well some anyway) believe the government was behind 9/11.

These are the ones that come to mind right now, I’m sure you’ve heard about others.

Where are the smart people in government, or should I say our non-functioning government, locked up by special interests and partisanship run amok? How smart is losing our manufacturing base? I’ll stop, don’t want to get into a political debate.

I have to admire your positive outlook and wish I shared your optimism.

Low n Slow said:

Can’t find Canada (or name any huge country) on a map.
Haven’t a clue as to how their government works, let alone who their representative’s are.
Do not believe in evolution.
On the right many believe Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis attacked us on 9/11.
On the left many (well some anyway) believe the government was behind 9/11.

Click to expand...

I've seen those stories where kids can't pick out Canada on a map and all but I haven't met them. Of course I grew up in the 60s and we all knew where Canada was, and it wasn't because it was our biggest economic training partner.

Every generation likes to think it's the last smart generation. I have great respect for kids today. If your state education department has standardized math/science tests, go to the Web site and download it and take the test. I guarantee you "where's Canada" isn't on there. And a bunch of questions I can't answer are.

We grew up in an era where information was scarce. It's not scarce any more.

At least two of the items you mentioned, however, prove the value of open information because the situations existed because the information was a)withheld b) cooked c) massaged or d) just plain wrong. To me it shows what happens when government manages the information to support a political agenda.


Given good information, people will generally make the right decision for themselves. I've seen what happens when the "intel" is bad. That's why I opt for more information rather than less.

I know there are people who feel strongly that information should have been withheld in this case because we're too stupid to decide for ourselves whether we want to fly or not. But to me, it's illogical on the one hand to argue for fewer restrictions on medicals and other regs to allow us to enjoy the FREEDOM of flight, and yet on the other hand deny people the information to give them the FREEDOM to make their own choices and decisions.

Freedom's funny like that. Sometimes people disagree with the legal choices that others make. "Tough," I say. It comes with the territory.

It isn't necessarily that people are stupid. It is a matte of being able to do anything about it. People and media in particular will focus on the wrong part, the sensational part, because they cannot do anything productive with the information. Only the airliners, safety agencies, airplane manufacturers and NASA? can actually use that information to create safer flying. There are millions of similar surveys and investigations going on all the time, but no one ask for the raw data in those cases, and the reason is there is nothing sensational about them, just boring numbers.

Do the people have the right to know? I don't know. It depends on who has paid for those investigations.

As long as it's people inside jetliners -- if that's what we're talking about here -- and as long as people still get to decide whether they will fly as a mode of transportation, and as long as it's people who fund the various far-flung agencies of the government, I would submit to you that the people have an interest and a right to the informaiton.

The sensational part? You mean an agency of the government deciding safety information might ruin the bottom line of private corporations (who all lined up for tax breaks from the taxpayer in the wake of 9/11) and so some government bureaucrat not only decided to keep that information secret, he decided to order the destruction of the evidence? That sensational part?

Darned right we'd focus on that.

I realize people hate the media. They'd probably be thrilled with the little system of government control that Vladimir Putin seems to be putting together.

Like I said, i realize people hate the media. I've gotten several emails to reinforce that. But, you know? We can't argue against user fees and use the safety factor as one of our many clarion calls to the public... and then turn around two months later and say, "it's none of your business what the state of aviation safety is in America."

Not that we won't try and hope nobody notices, of course.

I remember a former collegue of mine told about the time he was interviewed by a newspaper about radiation from high voltage power cables. First he tried to explain to her that the radiation energy from those high voltage cables is extremely small, and when they are hanging 20-30 m away, it is negligible compared with a TV or a lamp in the roof. He did that in terms of basic relations of voltage, ampere and radiated power, and explained that even though the voltage is high, this doesn't mean that the radiated energy is high. The women reporter understood zero, so he tried to explain in terms of examples. One of the examples he brought up was that he found it very strange that not a single person had become "sick" or gotten "cancer" from high voltage cables buried in the ground just 1-2 feets away, particularly in cities where lots of them are boundled together. He explained that those cables, being much closer, had much more radiated power than cables in the air 20m away, still they are considered 100% harmless.

What she wrote the next day was (translated): "Researchers tones down the dangers from high voltage cables in the air, instead they say the ground is littered with undetonated radiation bombs".

That's medai. The truth is worth nothing, unless it can be bent to the unreckognizible and turned into a sensational looking head line.

This has nothing to do with the NASA thing, but somehow I am much more likely to trust the motives of someone employed at NASA, bureucrat or not, than the media in general. Maybe I am wrong in this particular case, who knows?

SvingenB said:

Do the people have the right to know? I don't know. It depends on who has paid for those investigations.

Click to expand...

So are we to infer from this remark that only those who foot the bill for the investigation should have the right to view the information?

Well, I believe the answer to who paid for this particular investigation is: YOU, ME AND EVERY OTHER TAX PAYER WHO HAD THEIR TAXES DIVERTED TO FUND NASA DID!!!, for the tune of about $8.5 million. So using this logic, I have a right to see this information.

RVbySDI said:

So are we to infer from this remark that only those who foot the bill for the investigation should have the right to view the information?

Well, I believe the answer to who paid for this particular investigation is: YOU, ME AND EVERY OTHER TAX PAYER WHO HAD THEIR TAXES DIVERTED TO FUND NASA DID!!!, for the tune of about $8.5 million. So using this logic, I have a right to see this information.

Click to expand...

Cool, I like the direction of this logic. Seems I'm due a shuttle ride!

Low n Slow said:

Over the years I?ve read poll after poll that indicates with reasonable accuracy, so I?m told, that a large percentage and in some cases a majority of people;

Do not believe in evolution.

Click to expand...

Well, it's official now. I'm stupid. I'm beginning to have second thoughts about whether or not I should even try to build an RV.