Forget Kohoutek, do what you want.
I think every one interested in astronomy should get out and see a penumbral eclipse. It's about learning by doing. The subtle color change will require some effort but its not beyond anyone who is curious enough to look for themselves. Also you don't need to rely on the word of experts. You can go to Google and do your own research and end up knowing as much as they do about the subject in question. Don't be afraid of disappointing the public. They are much more intelligent and curious then they are given credit for. If you only go look at the events that are considered "great", you will only get out a couple of times in your entire life. DT
This is good advice for anyone who has more than a passing interest in astronomy. But I agree with Patrick in that publicizing very minor astronomical events can have the "cry wolf" effect with the general public. Most casual newspaper readers (or blog readers in this case) are probably not going to perform a Web search after reading an article. They will read "eclipse tonight" and the rest of the technicalities won't register. Seeing nothing unusual (in the case of a shallow penumbral eclipse), they will probably dismiss such articles in the future. Most of the readership will in fact only get out a couple of times in their lives. Nobody's talking about only publicizing "great" events, Daniel, but events that can't be distinguished from a non-event, or won't even be visible for most of the readership (Utah may be in daylight when it happens, or night-time if it's a solar event), can have a negative effect on readership. Ultimately it's that ability to sell the paper that will keep the blog running, not a warm fuzzy feeling of educating the masses. On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 3:12 PM, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote:
I think every one interested in astronomy should get out and see a penumbral eclipse. It's about learning by doing. The subtle color change will require some effort but its not beyond anyone who is curious enough to look for themselves.
Also you don't need to rely on the word of experts. You can go to Google and do your own research and end up knowing as much as they do about the subject in question.
Don't be afraid of disappointing the public. They are much more intelligent and curious then they are given credit for.
If you only go look at the events that are considered "great", you will only get out a couple of times in your entire life.
DT
Watch out Chuck. Agreeing with me puts you in pretty rare company. :) But seriously, I mentioned Kohoutek on purpose. I was going to flight school in Tulsa back when Kohoutek came around and remember all too well the hype the comet's approach generated. Even Johnny Carson got involved. Well, many of us know what happened. Following huge "Comet of the Century" build up hype and then the comet barely made it to naked eye visibility. Fast forward a couple of years. It was March of 1976 and I was brand new at Hansen. We'd heard there was a comet called West approaching but the astronomical community was still licking its wounds from Kohoutek so very little was said to the media/public. Then one morning I got a call from a guy who claimed to have been out that morning and had seen a huge comet in the east. Remember, this was before the internet so I had no way to check his story and, frankly, he sounded so crazy I doubted his story. But I promised to go have a look the next morning. I did as promised and the next morning I drove up to SLAS's old observing site on Little Mountain. And I could not believe my eyes. It was incredible! When the coma rose it was like the glow of an about-to-rise Moon. I raced back down the mountain (no cell phones then) and found a phone and called then planetarium director Dr. Mark Litmann. Woke him up as I remember. Told him what I'd just seen and got his ok to contact media. I'd never spoken to media about astronomy before so they had no idea who I was. So between my being unknown to them and my trying to tell them about the comet not long after they'd been burned on Kohoutek and it took days before local and even national media said much about it. And, by then of course, West was already fading rapidly. One of the best comets of the 20th century and few people saw it. In fact, I know of a SLAS member or two (who may announce themselves if they wish but I wont mention names <g>) who were active amateur astronomers at the time but never saw West. So, yes Chuck, let's keep the hype under control. patrick On 24 Dec 2008, at 20:32, Chuck Hards wrote:
This is good advice for anyone who has more than a passing interest in astronomy. But I agree with Patrick in that publicizing very minor astronomical events can have the "cry wolf" effect with the general public. Most casual newspaper readers (or blog readers in this case) are probably not going to perform a Web search after reading an article. They will read "eclipse tonight" and the rest of the technicalities won't register. Seeing nothing unusual (in the case of a shallow penumbral eclipse), they will probably dismiss such articles in the future. Most of the readership will in fact only get out a couple of times in their lives.
Nobody's talking about only publicizing "great" events, Daniel, but events that can't be distinguished from a non-event, or won't even be visible for most of the readership (Utah may be in daylight when it happens, or night-time if it's a solar event), can have a negative effect on readership. Ultimately it's that ability to sell the paper that will keep the blog running, not a warm fuzzy feeling of educating the masses.
I'm VERY happy to say that I did see comet West, and it was absolutely spectacular. I've never seen another comet to equal it, or even approach it, really. There have been technically brighter comets, but they set while still in a bright sky; and a longer comet- but it was tenuously dim. What about Hale-Bopp, you ask? Meh. Not even close. A cute little thing, though. While there were "gatherings" at Little Mountain to see West, none of them ever could be considered "crowds", at least the ones I was part of. And Patrick is 100% correct in stating that the fizzle of Kohoutek was to blame for the lack of publicity for West. On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>wrote:
One of the best comets of the 20th century and few people saw it. In fact, I know of a SLAS member or two (who may announce themselves if they wish but I wont mention names <g>) who were active amateur astronomers at the time but never saw West.
Guys: So how long will we be doing pennace for the sins of Kokoutek? It has been awhile you know. The media landscape of today is vastly different from way back when you wore bell bottoms and sideburns. Today we have the internet. The "media" doesn't go to Hansen Planetarium for news anymore, they send email directly to Roger Sinot, Alan McRoberts, and Sue French. They have to do this because all of their few remaining customers are doing so. Over hype is now virtually impossible, but Underhype is a lasting legacy of the Kohoutek parable. When Comet McNaught came by the media was careful to not overhype it, so few in the north even bothered to look at it. When the comet reached the southern hemisphere, the media there was caught flat footed. They had believed that their northern media friends and assumed that the comet would be no big deal. I appreciate that Patrick went out and looked at comet West but many of today's amateur astronomers weren't alive back then. The world has moved on. Kohoutek is irrelevant. DT --- On Wed, 12/24/08, Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Chuck Hards <chuck.hards@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Forget Kohoutek, do what you want. To: "Utah Astronomy" <utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com> Date: Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 10:41 PM I'm VERY happy to say that I did see comet West, and it was absolutely spectacular. I've never seen another comet to equal it, or even approach it, really. There have been technically brighter comets, but they set while still in a bright sky; and a longer comet- but it was tenuously dim. What about Hale-Bopp, you ask? Meh. Not even close. A cute little thing, though. While there were "gatherings" at Little Mountain to see West, none of them ever could be considered "crowds", at least the ones I was part of. And Patrick is 100% correct in stating that the fizzle of Kohoutek was to blame for the lack of publicity for West.
On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Patrick Wiggins <paw@wirelessbeehive.com>wrote:
One of the best comets of the 20th century and few people saw it. In fact, I know of a SLAS member or two (who may announce themselves if they wish but I wont mention names <g>) who were active amateur astronomers at the time but never saw West.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Astronomical events of little importance are pretty irrelevant too, Daniel, as far as the non-astronimically minded newspaper reader is concerned. We're just talking about a blog aimed at the general public, not the International Astronomical Union membership. Kohoutek was Patrick's first experience with "crying wolf" for the public, but far from unique, and the experience is not irrellevant. McNaught was a non-event for the general public living in urban locations around here- where 95% of the population lives. It was suitably covered on astronomical Websites and in the astronomical press, so southern-hemisphere copy writers had ample notice. It's one of those cases of geography rendering something invisible (happens with eclipses every time). The media was very correct to not over-hype it in many American markets. Your statement that "over-hype is impossible" these days isn't correct. I fielded many questions from co-workers and friends who were unable to find it. Those who did see it as a bright dot with my help, either in broad daylight or the orange glow of sunset invariably said something like "THAT's what all the fuss is about?" and shook their heads. More than one local TV station mistakenly showed live shots of Venus, thinking they had the comet in view (the nucleus had already set long before then). What service was that to the public- mistakenly calling Venus comet McNaught? None. Many of my friends now don't listen to any press announcements of astronomical events unless they hear from me directly that it is visible and worth looking for. Over-hype has de-sensitized them to press releases. My suggestion to you, Daniel, would be to write your own blog and issue your own press releases if you find others lacking. Mention everything, no matter if it's visible or not, visually impressive or so esoteric that only you can appreciate on levels unknown to the rest of us. Ultimately Sheena will decide for herself what to publicize in her blog. We'll see what turns out to be hype and what turns out to be a public service. I'm sure we all wish her success. On Thu, Dec 25, 2008 at 2:14 PM, daniel turner <outwest112@yahoo.com> wrote:
Guys:
So how long will we be doing pennace for the sins of Kokoutek? It has been awhile you know. The media landscape of today is vastly different from way back when you wore bell bottoms and sideburns. Today we have the internet. The "media" doesn't go to Hansen Planetarium for news anymore, they send email directly to Roger Sinot, Alan McRoberts, and Sue French. They have to do this because all of their few remaining customers are doing so. Over hype is now virtually impossible, but Underhype is a lasting legacy of the Kohoutek parable. When Comet McNaught came by the media was careful to not overhype it, so few in the north even bothered to look at it. When the comet reached the southern hemisphere, the media there was caught flat footed. They had believed that their northern media friends and assumed that the comet would be no big deal.
I appreciate that Patrick went out and looked at comet West but many of today's amateur astronomers weren't alive back then.
The world has moved on. Kohoutek is irrelevant.
participants (3)
-
Chuck Hards -
daniel turner -
Patrick Wiggins