Artemis II returned home last evening.  It was pinpoint perfection – a fact noted, but unappreciated, by the media.  As with the launch I tried, desperately, to watch network coverage.  I tried them all, but in both cases I quickly found myself watching the direct NASA feed on YouTube.  The reason why was perfectly encapsulated by Anderson Cooper last evening when Neil deGrasse Tyson commented on solar radiation and Cooper said, “I literally don’t know a word you’re saying.”  The anchors and reporters for every network that covered this mission were stunningly, shamefully and sadly ignorant of the science and engineering of the mission.

It is worthy of note that the direct NASA feed was very unprofessional by broadcast standards – long periods of dead air and nothing happening on screen.  But it was nonetheless informative when it did speak and somehow managed to avoid banality.  The networks, on the other hand, were extremely, banally and repetitively chatty.  It was very clear the person at the desk had a sheet of talking points in front of them and they just repeated them over and over and over again – sometimes altering the verbiage, but equally as often not.  The networks relied on a plethora of guests and “experts” who were often as uninformed as the hosts and anchors.

Of course, I am old and equipped with vivid memories of Walter Cronkite crying when Apollo 11 landed on the moon.  Note in that video how a much later, retired Cronkite says “I had just as much time to prepare for that landing as the space program did.”  He had studied, interviewed, embedded and read – he knew and understood what was happening.  He was no clueless anchor at a desk.  Likewise I have vivid memories of Jules Bergman covering Apollo for ABC – he was knowledgeable in the extreme.  Such memories left these current people looking Monty-Python-level silly.

A single example – much was made yesterday of the precision of this flight, the lack of need for corrective burns.  A decent reporter would wonder why that was the case.  Watching Ron Howard’s masterpiece “Apollo 13” one would recall those guys executing a burn with a stopwatch, joystick and sighting the earth out a window – hardly precise – which is what produced all the tension in that mission’s reentry as no one knew for certain if the angle of entry would be correct.  What was so different with Artemis?  Speculating, entirely, I would say digital controls.  Such controls make everything they touch more precise, even my recent knee replacement surgery.  But then ignorance, as demonstrated by these anchors and reporters, is a sign of a lack of curiosity.

Artemis II was a triumph for NASA – and shameful for American media.

And now the pile of leftovers:

Just another example of where media missed the mark covering Artemis.

Speaking of media shame.  Leaking about downed aircraft in enemy territory os about as low as it gets.  The president had a right to be ticked off.

If he has seen the pictures why has no one else in Congress?

California – hip deep in fraud and cluelessness.

Wait?  What?!  The early church practiced infant baptism!!  That’s liable to upset a bunch of people.