How TV Networks flubbed coverage of Neil Armstrong's passing | Hacker News Reader

How TV Networks flubbed coverage of Neil Armstrong's passing

sfgate.com

18 pointsmehrshad13 comments

I can't agree with this enough. I didn't actually tune into TV until the local 11:00 pm newscast, and he wasn't mentioned until 11:20. That's just insane to me. And, I think, bad news judgment.

The man was a living legend. I've recently seen him compared to Lindbergh, but I think that's wrong. He wasn't "the first person to use a new technology to do a given task", he was closer to a Columbus. (Let's avoid any aside into morality with the Columbus parallel, please.) He was "the first person to do the task". And I say "closer" because as we know, Columbus "found" a continent that was full of people.

Armstrong was literally the first. He literally doesn't have a comparison. And he was alive in our time.

> Armstrong was literally the first.

I prefer to think of it as Armstrong being the symbol of a massive team effort. As much as he was the first person to step on the moon, it took thousands of "nerds" (as they proudly admitted at the time) to put him there. His act of walking down the ladder was risky, but it was based on the contributions of thousands.

I'm OK with him not being excessively glorified. It could have been Buzz Aldrin just as easily being the first, or any of the other Apollo astronauts. Indeed, perhaps we should spend more time glorifying those who gave their life for the Apollo missions (directly, Grissom, White and Chaffee, and indirectly probably many more) and the people who built the technology to put a man on the moon.

Let's raise a toast to Buzz, for he did take the first step, but also to the many thousands of people who put him there. They, as much as he, are the true heroes of the story.

heh, I believe you meant raise a toast to Neil. But that said, you're absolutely right, it could have been one of many other people. But having been that guy, I don't know that evoke else would have sacrificed so much, purposefully, as to not taint what he accomplished with the shortcomings and shortsightedness of man. It's bern said in documentaries that his willingness to be an icon was intentional. And as much as I value that, you're right. The way to do so is to remember what he was a symbol of.

I prefer to think he dies the same way he lived his life - humbly. I think he realized his first step on the moon wasn't only his accomplishment, but one of the many thousands who designed and built the machine he and his crewmates flew.

This really sets an example.

I think Armstrong's treatment in the media is rather reflective of the relatively low degree of prestige the entire space program currently enjoys.

What I mean by this is that a number of people alive today no longer regard the fact that we landed on the moon with any particular reverence. This, I think, is due in large part to the as-of-yet unrealized potential of space exploration in general.

Had we been at a point in our evolution where space travel had demonstrated more tangible changes in daily life, the reaction would quite likely have been different. This isn't my personal opinion vis a vis Apollo 11, but rather my best guess as to how it is perceived by the public at large.

I for one look forward to the day when we all look back on NASA's early achievements with awe, and note precisely how much our world changed on a July day in 1969.

This is also because we are not in a forward-looking society anymore, aiming at bigger-than-ourselves kind of purpose. Now we live in a age where worthless stuff is highly valued and mostly talked about, losing sight of higher ideals.

Tyler's words come back to mind: "we are the middle children of History. Our great war is a spiritual one."

A big part of it is that space is just too inaccessible to most people - Neil Armstrong was elite, and an aversion towards all things 'elite' permeates our societies. We technocrats sure know why he was awesome, but to the average Joe, Neil Armstrong represented a segment of society that was untouchable, outside the reach of an average individual.

I think its a two-edged sword - we need 'the best' to pilot our technologically overwhelming machines - but this leaves a lot of us out. If Neil Armstrong wasn't such a well-trained, highly educated, privileged individual, perhaps there would be more of a fuss made .. but the fact is, average humanity is about as far away from the state of existence of Neil Armstrong as you and I are, really, from the Moon ..

(Too bad NASA and the entire US "Defense" apparatus isn't delivering water purification, school library and DIY-hospital packages from orbit. Maybe it'd matter more to the rest of Humanity..)

Just another reason not to watch the TV Networks. Many of the sites I frequently regularly (such as this one) had great links and discussions on what his contributions have meant to society. Can't think of a better way to memorialise a hero of that calibre.

The network media lost touch with audience members like me a long time ago...

How does this matter? TV flubs everything. Traditional media is over.

media if just fine, it's people that are utterly and painfully stupid.

Interesting that the media types find tasteful humility to be so strange. Greatness just is. It doesn't need sound bites.

This is why, as annoying as those facebook "shares" on your stream are, they allow for some bias correction in the news that propagates.

Then again, the funny/catchy/ironic ones seem to be favored so it probably is equally worse.

Why do people expect anything different from mainstream TV these days?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com