Purple Streak Anomalies
Comments: 9
I hate to begin posting again after a brief absence with wild, unsupportable generalisations (although it’s never stopped me before), but are times so tough in newspaper publishing that copy- or sub-editors have been completely eliminated?
The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting on amateur photography which “appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking [Columbia]” (“SF Man’s Astounding Photographs…” by Sabin Russell) as it reentered the atmosphere over the Bay Area (don’t ask me how they deduce the direction of the streak). The original story by David Perlman, the paper’s Science Editor, contained this beauty:
The pictures, taken with a Nikon-880 digital camera on a tripod, reveal what appear to be bright electrical phenomena flashing around the track of the shuttle’s passage, but the photographer, who asked not to be identified, will not make them public immediately.
[…]
“I couldn’t see the discharge with own eyes, but it showed up clear and bright on the film when I developed it,” the photographer said. “But I’m not going to speculate about what it might be.”
Does “developing film” mean something like “viewed the images on my computer”? Talking about film when the images were taken digitally just seems a bit sloppy. If that’s actually what the photographer said, then I’d consider it the reporter’s job to have him clarify that in the correct terms which could then make it into the story.
Maybe I’m just in a bad mood, but I’m seeing a disturbing amount of this sort of sloppiness recently.
•••
Posted to General Rants • 2003.02.07 (Fri) • 10:25
Comments
Posted by Scott 2003.02.07, 13:27
I actually picked up that error in the blockquote even before you mentioned it.
Yes, very sloppy indeed and yes I’ve noticed it as well. Then again, I’m anally retentive, especially when it comes to spelling and grammar.
Posted by natalie 2003.02.07, 13:36
very, very sloppy.
might as well get all your news from weblogs.
thats what I do :)
Posted by Mary Beth 2003.02.07, 13:54
As long as we’re talking news from weblogs - my 12” powerbook arrived! It’s sooooo sleek!
Posted by Stephan Schmidt 2003.02.07, 21:21
@Mary: I want one too. I have to find someone in the company who takes my 12” iBook then.
Posted by Richard 2003.02.07, 22:21
I have no reason to read anything from the San Francisco Chronicle except the occasional link from MetaFilter or right here at Antipixel. Pretty much everything I’ve read from that site has been crap. Utter crap. Can’t say it enough. Crap. Crap. Crap. (Er, sorry.)
Posted by Adam Rice 2003.02.08, 01:27
I wish we could see this image. I’ve got an 880. It’s susceptible to chromatic abberation, a lens problem that results in (wait for it) ghostly purple near color transitions.
Posted by Eric Vitiello 2003.02.08, 03:37
Not to mention that the long exposure length would make the exposure susceptible to things such as this by slight movements of the camera - even moving a miniscule amount could cause such a thing.
Posted by ry rivard 2003.02.08, 11:30
I also found the article suspect, nonetheless National Public Radio (NPR) said on a state-side morning show that NASA officials had taken the photographs and some others from the west coast back to be analyized.
Posted by Nancy Hanger 2003.02.08, 12:50
As a sometimes-copy editor in the book industry, and a past copy editor in the newspaper, I can say with a bit of conviction that the majority of the newspaper industry, at least, is cutting back on its costs starting with production. Copyediting is considered production work — menial, low-cost, and something that can be done by a monkey with half a brain. Which is what they end up getting by paying their lowest bidders or kids just out of college (and half-illiterate kids, at that) for copyediting. (Ask me sometime what I really think.)
Post a comment:
Send This Story to an Enemy
• • •
