Okay, this isn't something trivial, like Cowing always nitpicks about, it's a $3,500 Million spacecraft, 7 crewmen, 2 more in recovery operations.

A journalist is always permitted one bias: in terms of what he (I would say he/she,but it's awkward) covers. In TV journalism, videotape availiablity often hopelessly flaws coverage by shaping a story, IF the editors allow it to happen -

With ABC, we were left with the impression that Rocha did not have the courage of his convictions - omitting the fact that he'd already been shouted down twice at least - and that this led to the disaster.

This is simply a crock.

Not covered by ABC:

1) the new "environmentally correct" foam
2) the flawed applications of the "new" foam to the tanks

ABC caught the ignoring of earlier foam strikes

3) the failure of the launch cameras
4) Hale's call for reconnaisance imagery
5) Ham's consultation with outside engineers who she knew when she first got the report

The Boeing team's model's failure was covered

6) The Ham-Readdy exchanges, and calls by Readdy to NIMA, etc -
note carefully the "etc" part

7) Pilot advisement poorly covered

8) Survivablility issues poorly covered, and not understood by those reporting them - no interviews with anyone directly working this problem

Really liked the Keene (spp?) interview, who immediately spoke about crew compartment survivability - I give him a grade of 99.95% - he's flight worthy

9) Ramon bailout attempt from intact crew compartment - we don't want to get into those messy details, and upset our viewers, now do we?

If a story is so poorly covered that it leaves the viewer with a faulty impression of what occured, then hasn't it failed bigtime? Fortunately, unlike flght, journalists get the chance to update their pieces to the point they work -

ep

Correspondence between

Further, we