2 ms·

You discredited the article because it said people used protective glasses to watch the eclipse? I'm not an "eclipse veteran", I don't know anything about it,

by et1337 9y ago

You discredited the article because it said people used protective glasses to watch the eclipse? I'm not an "eclipse veteran", I don't know anything about it, but my feed was nothing but eclipse glasses for three whole days. I would say people wore glasses.

Stratoscope 9y ago
Touché. ;-) Yes, I did dismiss the article after that first paragraph, and as I mentioned probably unfairly on my part. Sorry, it was just a real peeve of mine in the weeks leading up to this eclipse to see so much misinformation spread by the news media. It was the same thing that happened in the 1979 eclipse that I got to see in all its glory. It was really sad to see so many people denied that experience because of unjustified fear, when it's possible to view a total eclipse in complete safety as I did. And the same thing happened again this year. This astronomer's experience in 1979 was all too typical: http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-eclipse-experience-dont-let-that-happen-to-you http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-ecli... OK, enough of my eclipse gripes. Just explaining why this put me off from the rest of the article. By way of contrast, if that opening paragraph had mentioned that all the people who used eclipse glasses during totality missed the whole thing because of misinformation and fear, now that would have caught my attention and led me to believe that the author might have some good insights in other areas too. Y'all can get back to VR now... :-)
- mncharity 9y ago
  I've wondered why this isn't a market niche. Some news stories are easily anticipated. People die, so papers write obits ahead of time. Water mains break, and TV news... starts from scratch, showing boring pictures of water while making inane comments. Why isn't it a thing, that say film students, go out and interview water main people, and create fun graphics, and then when a main inevitably breaks, offer media outlets "you can be inane and boring and wrong, or pay us $$ for this content package"?

by et1337 9y ago

Stratoscope 9y ago

Touché. ;-) Yes, I did dismiss the article after that first paragraph, and as I mentioned probably unfairly on my part. Sorry, it was just a real peeve of mine in the weeks leading up to this eclipse to see so much misinformation spread by the news media. It was the same thing that happened in the 1979 eclipse that I got to see in all its glory. It was really sad to see so many people denied that experience because of unjustified fear, when it's possible to view a total eclipse in complete safety as I did. And the same thing happened again this year. This astronomer's experience in 1979 was all too typical: http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-eclipse-experience-dont-let-that-happen-to-you http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/35055369/i-was-robbed-of-my-ecli... OK, enough of my eclipse gripes. Just explaining why this put me off from the rest of the article. By way of contrast, if that opening paragraph had mentioned that all the people who used eclipse glasses during totality missed the whole thing because of misinformation and fear, now that would have caught my attention and led me to believe that the author might have some good insights in other areas too. Y'all can get back to VR now... :-)

mncharity 9y ago
I've wondered why this isn't a market niche. Some news stories are easily anticipated. People die, so papers write obits ahead of time. Water mains break, and TV news... starts from scratch, showing boring pictures of water while making inane comments. Why isn't it a thing, that say film students, go out and interview water main people, and create fun graphics, and then when a main inevitably breaks, offer media outlets "you can be inane and boring and wrong, or pay us $$ for this content package"?