Today's NASA Propaganda Accusation by a Journalism Professor
NASA Tries to Rewrite the Book on Science Fiction, Wall Street Journal
“Getting a message across embedded in a narrative rather than as an overt ad or press release is a subtle way of trying to influence people’s minds,” says Charles Seife, author of “Decoding the Universe,” who has written about NASA’s efforts to rebrand itself. “It makes me worry about propaganda.” Enidia Santiago-Arce, a NASA official who is coordinating the author-scientist exchanges, says the agency isn’t pushing pro-NASA story lines. The collaboration doesn’t include any NASA funding. “They write whatever they want,” she said. “We provide them with people who have the expertise to help make it as accurate as it can be within the realms of science fiction.”
Keith’s note: (Sigh) now NASA hater and journalism professor Charles Seife thinks NASA is mounting a “propaganda” effort via SciFi writers. WIth regard to bias and propaganda, I wonder how he’d describe his inaccurate rant from last week. Was he trying to sway people’s opinions about NASA? Tsk tsk. Had he bothered to read the language of recent NASA authorization legislation – which is now signed into law – Seife would know that NASA is overtly and specifically prohibited from things such as propaganda, advertising, etc.
If Seife had any powers of observation, or had done just a little research before commenting, he’d know that SciFi has been inspiring NASA – and NASA has been inspiring SciFi – and both have been inspiring the rest of us for more than half a century – perhaps even longer. That relationship is not going to go away any time soon.
Indeed, the painting on the right, by Norman Rockwell, is one of many artistic compositions commissioned and enabled by NASA with the intent of conveying the Apollo program to a wider audience. At the time, as a young boy, I saw this image as future reality. That’s what SciFi often does, right? Then NASA makes it real.
Today’s Gratuitous Dump on NASA By A Journalism Professor
Keith, respectfully, I think you need to chill, just a little. But thanks for bringing this book to my attention, it’ll be on my list.
No chillin’ for me.
I think Seife is off-base by these remarks. NASA is not writing the sci fi. All NASA is doing is communicating to the sci fi authors some of what it is working on. NASA has a legit role in communicating and educating what it does to the public. When you look at the WSJ article it is the only negative comment that is made. Otherwise the story is a statement of fact-an expose of a program of mutual interest for NASA and sci fi writers. Seife is afraid if NASA has any influence on the authors then maybe readers might become enamored with NASA’s activities? Let NASA tell what its doing and let the authors and the readers do the writing and the reading and make up their own minds.
” “Getting a message across embedded in a narrative rather than as an overt ad or press release is a subtle way of trying to influence people’s minds,” says Charles Seife, author of “Decoding the Universe,” who has written about NASA’s efforts to rebrand itself. “It makes me worry about propaganda.” “
For an agency not allowed to promote anything they do this seems like a small crack in the door rather than some overt form of “propaganda”. Considering anything NASA does make public immediately goes through the filter of bloggers central. The idea that Keith, Marc or a ton of other space advocates are going to turn a blind eye to blatent propaganda is rather silly.
Why didn’t the author compile a list of all the propagranda that NASA has been foisting on the public, like congress is cutting NASA funding, WOW now there is some news I bet NO ONE in the space advocacy or Aerospace Industry was even aware of.
This might sidetrack the discussion, but does anyone have suggestions
for books similar to this? I’ve never been able to get into science
fiction related to space exploration too far the future (maybe makes me
too depressed 🙂 but these near-term, “just over the technology horizon”
type books sit well with me. As an example, I enjoyed Energized by
Edward Lerner and Orbit by John Nance. Perhaps not classics of American
literature, but the stories stuck with me and were fun to read.
Jerry Pournelle has written a few from the early part of the CoDominium series. Look for “High Justice” and “Exiles to Glory” (later combined into one volume).
If Charles Seife, wanted to bring some light to blanent propaganda he should be looking at Nelson, Shelby and the rest of the gang and their propaganda on why we spent 12 billion on CONstellation with not a single orbital or suborbital test launch or, according to the OIG, why the taxpayers are being asked to spend 16.5 BILLION on a disposable, 4 person, water landing capsule. We can buy a fully loaded Aircraft carrier cheaper than a freakin disposable capsule? Gosh Charlie .. how about a few lines about the propaganda from the the Porkonauts in congress.
We had Pad Abort 1 flight test in New Mexico, an Ares 1 test flight, several RSRM test firings.
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
I believe I predicated my statement on orbital or suborbital, If my memory serves nothing from the constellation program made it above the Karman line.
12 billion for those tests?
SLS 30+ billion, Orion 16.5 billion .. REALLY?
Considering Boeing, Lockheed and SpaceX all said they could do heavy lift for under 7 billion. There is no way you are going to justify the pork premium to me, it is insanity on a bun. THAT is what is keeping us earth bound, not a lack of funding for space, but misguided spending on transportation systems that should have been commercialized DECADES ago.
i rather target the WSJ writer … who came up with a sensational title “NASA tries to rewrite the book” … an odd way to express the sentiment of the article (which i read as NASA helping authors).
Charles Seife can choose to not read those books–he could’ve read Tango Midnight, Missing Man, Deception Point, or Cassandra Project, all of which are very critical of NASA.
Sidetrack: Teen romance with hard science? That will be interesting to see how it will be received.
I’m really not sure how he’s a “NASA hater”. Most of his criticism of NASA’s direction is exactly what many drooling space-at-all-costs fan-boys have been complaining about for decades. Bad programs that hurt science. Weak, lame PR efforts to defend weak lame expensive HSF programs which continually fail to advance HSF, in spite of decades of multi-billion dollar funding.
Criticise him for saying nothing that hasn’t been said before, or praise him for bringing the issues we’ve been arguing about to a wider audience. But denouncing him as a “hater” who apparently has no right to criticise NASA because he’s an outsider, seems to shoot ourselves in the foot rather badly.
Or recognize that Seife has made it open season on journalists! Ain’t Duck or Rabbit Season now.
So all the movies made with DOD support with unknown dollar value (i.e. Top Gun) on which the DOD gets script approval aren’t subtle attempts to influence public perceptions?
The term “pompous windbag” immediately comes to mind when reading Charles Seife’s NASA diatribes.