Re: TV News -- Apollo-11 'One Small Step' Shown Right/Wrong??

From: Bruce Palmer (bp201_at_optonline.net)
Date: 07/20/04 

Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 23:09:47 GMT

Jim Oberg wrote:
> Tonight on the news programs -- everybody please watch to see who uses the
> 'One small step' audio correctly with proper video clip, and who flubs it as
> described below.

Actually, I've been flipping through the national news programs for the
last 45 minutes or so. CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FNC, CNBC, MSNBC, and 2
different PBS stations. I've practically got my finger taped to the
damn Favorites button. I've seen absolutely zero mention of the Apollo
11 anniversary. The sad state of affairs you wrote about 10 years ago,
Jim, looks like the good old days by comparison.

> Apollo-11 TV Documentary Misrepresentations
>
> James Oberg // submitted manuscript // July 31, 1994
> Published in edited form in Aug 8, 1994, Wall Street Journal
>
> The recent blizzard of Apollo-11 anniversary programs was a fine tribute to
> that historical achievement of the American space program. The events of a
> quarter century ago came back to life in the dramatic portrayal seen on
> millions of television screens. But at the same time, many of the programs
> also displayed the sloppy errors, distortions and revisionist dramatizations
> which have come to characterize much of television journalism.

<snip>

> Clearly, none of these hypothetical cases can be considered acceptable.
> Anyone trying to do so would be considered irresponsible, even unethical.
> And since there are legions of history buffs, ship buffs, and sports buffs
> out there, any such attempts would be immediately recognized and widely
> criticized.

OTOH all of these cases would be considered perfectly acceptable today.
 The networks have all but abandoned journalistic integrity in the name
of ratings and profits. It's something that's been developing for
several years now. Made-for-TV dramatizations and re-enactments have
relegated anyone with a sense of outrage over this to the scrap heap.
An entire generation is growing up that won't remember it being any
other way.

<snip>

> In illustrating a Mercury splashdown, the TBS special 4-hour program "Moon
> Shot" used views of a Gemini splashdown instead. The difference is that
> Mercury capsules landed vertically beneath a parachute while Gemini capsules
> were slung horizontally from two separate lines below the parachute. On July
> 20, CNN showed Apollo-11 graphics of a moon-walking astronaut whose
> spacesuit had red leg stripes not introduced until Apollo-13. "Space buffs"
> gleefully spotted the errors, but viewers were unlikely to be misled by
> these minor slipups.

In 1969 there was a girl who lived next door to us. She was 10 and I
wasn't much older. To this day I remember her whining about how put out
she was that the TV stations were pre-empting Bewitched for the "stupid
astronauts." I remember her standing in our back yard and saying that
as clear as a fucking bell. I was apalled *then*. Tonight, wherever
she is, I'll bet she's glad the reports looking back on Apollo 11 are
confined to the news programs and not interrupting her weekly dose of
Big Brother 5.

<snip>

> Some historical visual scenes are certainly "interchangeable" by even the
> tightest standards, since no viewer is misled by showing one Gemini launch
> for another, or one group of engineers in Mission Control for another
> (unless, say, their actions are allegedly keyed to some event being
> described), or one "out the window" Earth or moon view for another. The
> criteria is clearly whether viewers will gain an authentic impression of the
> event, or not.

Giving authentic impressions does not add to the bottom line when there
are benign ways and means available to enhance the viewing experience.
Worrying about the pesky details detracts from the real job at hand.
After all, the're not *really* trying to mislead anybody ;-)

<snip>

> To make use of a recently released Russian filmclip showing burning men
> running from a rocket pad fire, Ted Turner's "Moon Shot" used the shocking
> scenes to illustrate a 1969 Soviet moon rocket explosion, with a narrator
> comment about reminders of the dangers of space flight. The horrible film
> was actually from a military missile mishap in 1960 that killed 165 men, but
> really had nothing to do with the Russian space exploration program. The
> "Moon Shot" producers must have known this, yet evidently decided to
> misrepresent it for dramatic effects (that is, to deceive their viewers),
> even though nobody was killed in the actual 1969 Russian moon rocket
> explosion which was the subject of the sequence.

Exactly. Rocket + explosion + run for your lives = sensational. That
the film was unrelated to the incident in question is a trifling detail.
 It dramatizes the danger in a visually intense manner.

<snip>

> The most egregious misrepresentation in "Moon Shot" was during the treatment
> of the Apollo-1 fire in 1967. As the narrator discusses the death of the
> three astronauts inside their burning capsule, a video is running of flames
> dancing behind a spacecraft window. TV critics who previewed the show called
> the scene "wrenching", as indeed its producers had intended it to be. But
> the video was actually a view from inside a Gemini capsule looking outward
> during the flames of reentry from space, and it had nothing to do with the
> Apollo fire. Instead, for emotional impact, the view was falsely described
> and the viewers were deliberately deceived.

But it showed real fire through a real spacecraft window. That's good
enough by today's standards.

> Some of these Apollo-11 historical video howlers have wider national
> implications, beyond mere questions of TV documentary ethics and practices.
> At the "Space Center Houston" museum developed for NASA by Disney
> consultants and their contractors, the feature movie "On Human Destiny" uses
> the false Gemini reentry plume for the Apollo lunar burn, then falsely
> portrays the flight control team in an orgy of irresponsible celebration
> immediately after the lunar touchdown, and then inaccurately overlays the
> view of Armstrong's descent down the ladder with his later words about "one
> small step". The film was reviewed and approved by NASA public affairs
> officials, who evidently did not recognize the errors. But if this is the
> level of Disney's historical reliability, it bodes ill for any similar
> Disney history projects elsewhere.

Disney = ESPN = ABC. Does anyone expect things to get better?

> Documentaries such as these shows have presented exciting views of the
> dramatic historical events, but providing entertainment was clearly their
> primary goal. Historical accuracy was repeatedly sacrificed to do so. These

Bingo. I trace the decline and fall of network news to the day when ABC
merged it's News division into its Entertainment division.

> measures certainly are acceptable when the goals are well understood, such
> as in the delightfully entertaining Hollywood version of "The Right Stuff",
> where all pretence of respecting the book's historical accuracy is
> subordinated to clear-cut visual stereotypes and amusing
> oversimplifications. And deadline-driven TV news programs often use stock
> footage, not always carefully labeled as such, to "fill in" for unavailable
> authentic scenes. But when TV programs pose as "true history" and are
> presented as documentaries, a higher standard of authenticity should be
> required.

Those days are long gone, James. Dwelling on the events of the past to
the point where you have to be accurate down to the tiniest detail
doesn't sell anything outside of Hollywood.

> The Apollo-11 anniversary programs showed again that such standards are not
> universally met. Some programs, such as Discovery's "One Giant Leap", were
> strikingly accurate, showing signs that some producers took the extra
> trouble to "get it right", and knew how to do so. But the widespread
> misrepresentations in other shows are more reminders that people should seek
> truth where it can be found, and the TV screen, with its need for visual
> excitement and compressed action, is not an environment always conducive to
> historical accuracy.

10 years ago this was borderline scandalous. Today it's standard
operating procedure. In another 10 years everyone under the age of 30
will be saying, "But that's the way it's always been." I would not be
at all surprised if they talk about Apollo 11 tonight and show footage
of the Space Shuttle. I hope they do it justice but I'm looking forward
more to the Nova program about String Theory at 8 Eastern.

After watching the nightly news programs I'll be surprised if Apollo 11
gets mentioned period. 

-- 
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003