in a current BBC Views Online (Don’t) Have Your Say discussion:
Is manned space travel still relevant in the 21st century? Is it worth the financial burden or just a country’s expensive ego trip – a hangover from 60s?
…which was magically stealth edited into:
Is manned space travel still relevant in the 21st century and worth the cost? Is the risk involved in space missions worth it?
…except that the evidence is still plain to see in the Readers Recommended view of the discussion. As Bodo says, the public reaction makes Biased BBC look tame:
Is it just a country’s expensive ego trip? So let me get this straight, NASA goes to space and does cutting edge research and this is referred to as a country’s expensive ego trip? The BBC truly has no shame.
Tom
Seeing as the U.S is the primary country doing space exploration, I wonder how quickly the BBC will ‘aid’ this HYS [to] degrade into another U.S bashing session…
Azam Azam
Oh lord, I can only predict the comments from the communists “Space travel is a waste when the money could be redistributed to the poor.” Sorry my pinko friends, human curiousity is very strong, I think space travel should be expanded. I cannot wait for humans to head to mars and further. I cannot wait to find life on other planets. If you want to help the poor, donate money, don’t expect us to stop spending money so you can sing the Internationale.
Steven Coran
Good lord, such bitter grapes. I thought champagne socialism and government funded media was a hangover from the ’60’s. This is not your “financial burden”, you have different “priorities” (How’s that working for you?) but you still get the benefits of our “expensive ego trip”.
Dale Rider
Here at Biased BBC we invite you to join in our own Have Your Say in the comments. Here’s the question, after a couple of BBC-style Wikipedia edits (in bold):
Is the BBC still relevant in the 21st century? Is it worth the financial burden, or just a country’s expensive ego trip – a hangover from the 30s?
“How important is space travel?
Nasa’s latest mission to the International Space Station will be shortened due to Hurricane Dean. Are manned missions a waste of space?”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/default.stm
image grab:
http://i10.tinypic.com/5xnh8vm.jpg
Has the original edit made it onto newssniffer? I can’t find it.
And just to show how the BBC keeps bringing up old chestnuts here`s one I got published earlier.-
DEBATE:
Is Nasa a waste of space?
SENT:
31-Aug-2006 11:05
COMMENT:
People have short memories, NASA and it`s personnel have brought us some of the pivotal moments of the last 50 years. Anyone who is old enough to remember a Saturn V blasting off, or Armstrong, Aldrin & Collins in Apollo 11 will know the excitement space exploration can bring. Lets face it, without the boffins who work in this field, it`s extremely unlikely we would be having this discussion. If NASA is a waste of space, then we may as well go back to living in caves.
Click to view comment
RECOMMENDED BY:
98 people
COMMENT STATUS:
Published
Hmmm, well India, France, Russia and China…. there is something of the ego trip about manned space-flight. When the UK began to contribute in a meaningful way to one of the European Space Programmes the biggest concern of the minister at the time was if the Union Flag would be appearing on the side of the rocket.
Nice try David, but the corporation has been caught out again. I suppose it was another one of those work experience kids again this time?
The amateurism is worse than the bias, IMO. That said, almost all the HYS questions are slanted to provoke certain responses, albeit rarely as blatantly as this.
I agree the the question was very poorly phrased, which I guess is why it was rewritten.
But the ego aspect of the exploration of space is certainly something that’s worth discussing.
The question set forth a false dilemma – either you had to think it was a worthwhile use of funds, or you had to think it was national egoism. These are not the only answers to the question of whether manned space flight should be undertaken, and the “egoism” argument is vague and weak anyway. I think most people would agree that manned space programmes provide valuable scientific data and satisfy natural human curiosity – and are not therefore purely “egoism” – even if they dont agree that it’s worth the money. So not only is it a false dilemma, but it’s a false dilemma with a bizarre choice of proposed options.
David Gregory [DG?] 🙂
Manned Vs unmanned space exploration, a perfectly worthy discussion, and one that the scientific community has all the time.
Unfortunately any such hopes were dashed because the BBC simply could not resist the opportunity to have a sly dig at America – it’s in your blood isn’t it? I suspect the person posing/posting the question didn’t even realise they were doing it until the angry responses came flooding in. I suppose we should at least give the Beeb credit for leaving the responses that revealed the idiocy of the original question – tho as others have alluded, is that honesty or incompetence?
Is your presence here in an official capacity btw? And the other BBC posters?
Lets not forget that BBC Laws say that HYS has to appeal to the lowest common denominator in terms of the readership. The more simplistic and childish the question the better it fits into the BBC’s remit to dumb-down.
If you consider that most liberal-left viewpoints are pretty childish, the effects of dumbing-down are often indistinguishable from deliberate bias.
I agree the the question was very poorly phrased.
David Gregory, it really is about time you people at the BBC came to understand the difference between poor literary skills and ingrained bias. You might start yourselves on the road to that understanding by considering that the allegedly poor literary skills, the alleged stupidity, the alleged incompetence and yes, even the alleged idiocy of those who write for the BBC always results in bias that slots in with the BBC’s narrow agenda.
Now why do you imagine that is?
David G
“But the ego aspect of the exploration of space is certainly something that’s worth discussing.”
Agree entirely. So why do you think the BBC gives the pointless and very, very expensive European Galileo project (ego trip) such positive and uncritical reviews? No cheap shots about Galileo being unmanned please – the principle is the same.
Whats wrong with a bit of egotism? Exploring space is definitely an accomplishment that few can lay claim too. Its an elite club.
But only an idiot would imply that ego is all that space exploration is. There are way too many obvious benefits to say otherwise.
Towcestarian: Problems, cost overruns, “glacial” progress. Not uncritical I’d say.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6450367.stm
RA: Nothing wrong with egotism in science. I think the space race was one of the most exciting times in history. But you could certainly argue at a very basic level it was just “my rocket is bigger than yours”
What question do posters think should have been asked?
David Gregory:
“Nothing wrong with egotism in science. I think the space race was one of the most exciting times in history. But you could certainly argue at a very basic level it was just “my rocket is bigger than yours”.”
True enough. The early space race in the 60s was rife with national competition. But it also engendered a lot of true awe and passion for space travel as well.
But I still find it hard to make this question about ego relevant to modern manned space exploration. The practical results (advances in science, sattlelites, whatever) are more than adequate to continue to drive space exploration.
So I find HYS’s original question strange and offputting.
David Gregory:
What question do posters think should have been asked?
The modified question that is now being asked is OK. Still hilariously backward and dumb but better.
“What question do posters think should have been asked?”
How about: “Do you think manned space flight was worth the money?”
Believe it or not, your viewers are not children – they dont need you to give them “suggested answers”. And if you must given suggested answers, at least give good ones.
NASA costs about $15 billion a year. TheBBC costs about £7.5 billion a year. Which would you rather have? I’d take NASA any day, over a bunch of cross dressers and limp wristed media luvvies.
The BBC has more than had its day, they do not even insist on real english any more, I really tried listening to radio one at work but it is awfull, Stalin would be proud! so being bigger than the others we have local independant on (BBC democracy at work?) It is aimed at the retarded, probably quite succsessfull at that but not having the benifit of a Labour organised education or a lobotamy I find it purile and vote with my dial. The TV has a few rare gems but I expect the powers that be are working on that ! I did read a blog somewhere that bthe BBC had blatantly lied about their listening figures, quoting a clear loss of listeners and calling it an increase.