

How TV Networks flubbed coverage of Neil Armstrong's passing - mehrshad
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/On-TV-a-quiet-exit-for-first-man-on-the-moon-3816493.php

======
jeffool
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.

~~~
slapshot
> 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.

~~~
jeffool
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.

------
rbanffy
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.

------
doktrin
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.

~~~
ekianjo
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."

~~~
seclorum
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..)

------
FreeKill
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...

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

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

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

------
manaskarekar
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.

------
drivebyacct2
Why do people expect anything different from mainstream TV these days?

