Slashdot Mirror
China Announces Launch-Success Details — Before Launch
Ironsides writes "After faking the fireworks at the Olympics this year, one would have thought China had learned their lesson. Now, it appears they announced the success of their manned space mission before liftoff even occured, complete with dialogue."
Nothing like a guaranteed success
It looks like we'll be seeing $2 time machines imported from China any day now....
the invention of a time machine.
Hysterical. Entirely typical ... but still hysterical.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Also leaked was a transcipt for their prospective moon landing...
Shenzhou 11: Base this is Shenzhou 11. Shenzhou has landed. Jesus H. Christ Base, We're on the fucking moon. Over.
Base: Roger, Shenzhou, we copy you. We cannot believe you are on the fucking moon. Repeat: Cannot fucking believe it. Over.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Yeah, but because of timezones, it's already tomorrow over there, right?
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
They said it would be open, honest, and transparent so as to let everyone get a glimpse into this historic achievement as a gesture of kindness toward the world. I actually thought about watching it for a few seconds, because there is only so much I thought they could think they could get away with. I guess I needed another reminder.
Don't news agencies prepare stories before it happens so they can be published quickly? There was that article about Steve Jobs' demise which obviously did not happen.
Don't they celebrate the new year before that happens too?
I figure that's what's happening here.
...that the whole mission is already recorded, so no matter if the rocket explodes on the launch pad, depressurizes in space, disintegrates on reentry or whatnot, the mission will be a success. And that's all you need to know.
greed@All_Evils:~#
It isn't that uncommon for Press Releases announcing the success of an event to be drafted before the event takes place.
Sure, fabricating the actual dialogue ahead of time is shadier than most.. but really what they're doing isn't THAT different from what we do in America every day. It's only garnering attention because it was leaked, but I can't imagine that anyone who says they're shocked by this isn't feigning that shock.
You could just as easily be just as shocked at a Presidential candidate accidentally releasing both a victory speech and a concession speech before knowing the outcome of an election. It's not really news, it's just humorous that it was posted (way) too prematurely.
How many people are honestly surprised at this?
I'm not sure I believe the video either.
If they're lying about their success (and yes, even if the mission turns out to be a success, they're still lying by announcing it early) then what else are they lying about?
For all we know dozens of taikonauts have died or been wounded in the making of China's space program.
They wouldn't tell us if it was the case.
How we know is more important than what we know.
You need to understand propaganda China, never tell overt lies. Look to the masters in Europe and America for guidance.
Yeah, but as others have pointed out, such scripted articles and speeches don't include supposed dialog from the future.
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
..and they have the ability to launch them within 45 minutes.
But we've always been at war with East Asia!
Of what the Chinese astronauts are supposed to say, including their emotional state and excitement. Those clever Chinese, they can't leave anything to chance after all!
Wait, was it "One small step for A man?" or "One small step for man?" Dang I forget...
From TFA:
The arcticle, dated two days from now on Sept. 27, vividly described the rocket in flight, complete with a sharply detailed dialogue between the three astronauts.
I suggest that henceforth stories written before the events they report shall henceforth be known as "arcticles". The backinition (reverse-derived defintion, a la "backronym") will be it is a merging of archive + article.
An anarcticle is reserved for an article that actually traveled back in time (anachronism + article).
But really so chosen to immortalize this typo, just like filk and pron before.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
including lying. Remember after Apollo 8 and then Apollo 11 the Russians cooked up a story that they were not going to the moon in the 1960's after several disasters during their moon program.
"There are lies, damned lies and statistics."
Mark Twain
We probably wouldn't know about it for weeks, possibly even months. The culture of 'face' would make any failure, no matter how slight, a terrible embarrassment to the ruling party. If there were a serious failure, loss of vehicle and crew, we might never hear about it at all. Depending on the severity, it could set their program back a decade or more as they try to recover from the 'shame'. Pre-event 'success' announcements such as these leaking out prior to a major failure could lead to possible 'termination' of those involved, also.
Sig this!
China didn't fake the fireworks, NBC did.
"Most people, I think, don't even know what a rootkit is, so why should they care about it?"
Pilot: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Ground Control: We get signal.
Pilot: What !
Ground Control: Main screen turn on.
Pilot: It's you !!
Technician: How are you gentlemen !!
Technician: All your base are belong to us.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/8362/bscap007mq8.jpg
What was it again? Wrong copy went to print by accident or...?
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Actually, newspapers print extracts from speeches politicians haven't yet given all the time - because they're scripted days in advance and, these days, intentionally provided to the press.
If you look at the 'dialog' in the story it's really nothing of the sort. It's canned phrases. Just like, as someone already noted, "One small step..." So there's obviously some phrases that it is known will be used during a successful launch, so the journalist can take a short cut in writing a story about it...
All major news outlets have pre-written obituaries for just about every major celebrity who's vaguely within range of snuffing it. Every few months there's a 'controversy' when one of 'em gets mistakenly published. I don't really see any difference to that...
That nation's government is nothing but a lie machine.
Because the astronauts dialogue will have to be translated into English, they can take whatever liberties they want. I'm sure whatever they actually say will translate exactly how the Chinese government wants it to. So really, where's the story here?
We willna be fooled again!
Kinda...Capricorn One.
Can my karma get any worse than bad? Let's find out!
Yes, and the obituary of every major public figure has already been written as well. Such prep pieces are responsible practice for newspapers that have to be ready on-the-spot.
This wasn't one of those pieces. This was an entire narrative complete with faked dialogue and details, such as being complete ahead of schedule. This wasn't preparation -- this was deception.
Unfortunately, lately we seem to have absolutely no room to talk, given the practices of our own "You-have-to-give-me-700-billion-dollars-right-now-no-questions-asked-or-there-will-be-disaster" government.
No, no, you should have said "Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter"
"You could just as easily be just as shocked at a Presidential candidate accidentally releasing both a victory speech and a concession speech before knowing the outcome of an election. It's not really news, it's just humorous that it was posted (way) too prematurely."
Only if it included the exact vote totals.
Yes, the dialogue inclusion is the particularly bad part about this. And it coming from a place that is known to censor things it does not like, lie about what it does, and generally be evil. IN isolation it would be seen as funny. In this case it is part of a pattern. That is what sets it apart from the occasional news gaffe of releasing the wrong story ("DEWEY WINS!").
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Sounds like the narration of one of those horrible 80s space pornos.
Lifeforce, not just for 8-bit game geeks.
Even in the west, it's not unheard of for "it will probably go by the book" news events to have news releases penciled in well ahead of time.
Back when James Earl Ray died, someone mis-heard it as James Earl Jones, and the scripted-ahead-of-time obits and eulogies hit the papers.
I fully expect China had the space launch planned down to the last detail, complete with scripted communications.
It's no surprise they would have a newspaper article written ahead of time. If something went off-script they would either make a hasty pre-publication correction or if it was really bad news, pretend like it never happened.
Their mistake was someone flipped the wrong switch and the draft news report leaked. In the grand scheme of things this is small potatoes.
Hmm, then again, since this has high distraction value, maybe this was a crazy-like-a-fox move on the part of Beijing.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
"After faking their fireworks?"
Please.
All the fireworks were real. The thing you're referring to is a sequence of fireworks that wasn't filmed for television and was replaced by CGI.
The reason that the sequence - a series of giant "footsteps" across parts of Beijing - was not filmed was that it was deemed too dangerous to follow the fireworks with a helicopter and camera.
The fireworks, of course, actually happened, and the stadium coverage of the fireworks were all real. Get your facts straight.
Isn't this common in journalism? If a known event is coming up, you write the article ahead of time -- one article for each probable outcome of the event. That way, when it occurs, you can publish immediately and not worry about being "scooped" by the competition. Most news agencies have obituaries already written for hundreds of celebrities. I'm sure most of them have stories already written for the victory of Obama or McCain, ready to roll out as soon as the official count comes in.
Looks to me like this is just another example of it, and it got posted accidently. This has happened before; I believe someone found CNN's repository of celebrity obits and it was a minor to-do for a while as everyone laughed, and then got over it.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
It sure is -- it's not like the US had scripted dialogue prepared before the moon landing! That would just be over the top.
Although, knowing us and our study habits, even if we had bothered to prepare lines, the astronaut would probably have just flubbed them.
I am the man with no sig!
World: You lied to me
China: It wasn't lies, it was just... bullshit
Exactly. How else do you expect news stories about upcoming events to be out so quickly?
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
The account and transcripts of their landing on Europa were published over 25 years ago.
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
"That's one step for a small man, and one giant leap for Mao."
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Somewhere some poor Chinese technician or editor is about to get executed.
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/14/65214-004-5A49F3A6.jpg
rj
Does this mean that Gerald Ford wasn't really eaten by wolves?
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
The dialog could be from a training run or something similar, they do some pretty comprehensive training setups it's not inconceivable that the dialog from one of these could've been used as dummy text
Aa far fabricating actual dialog, that is nothing interesting either. Every press release has quotes, and many times those quotes are fabricated specifically for the press release, and then, maybe, spoken after the fact. But it this case it may not even rise to this minimal level of illusion. I assume that the chinese practice the mission every bit as any other country, and I assume that communication is as stylized, even more given that every person on the mission was ranking military. Therefore, assuming that everything goes well, much of the dialog is standard.
It seems to me that might just be a case of sour grapes, or more likely just someone who has never had to meet a deadline in their life. It is at least someone who has no understanding of how difficult achieving these goals can be, and how important it to the techology of the world that as many people as possible should be working, and succeeding, in space travel. Four years ago the US declared it would make space travel a high priority and bee on the moon by 2015. Without any compitition to prod it, the US won't even have a workable human spec space vehicle by 2015.
What is doubly annoying the undertones that this might cover up a failure, which means that three people might have died, and this somehow is a joke. All indications is that this is a publishing mistake, which happens from time to time anywhere. Wishes the chinese to fail, or laughing at them, is just bad form.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
What was quoted may in fact be part of a script that the astronauts are required to speak for a TV appearance.
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The same happened here. The "faked" dialogue was nothing more than dummy text.
The Chinese never heard of lorem ipsum??
They went back in time to make it the "first post" on this article, but it got modded "Troll"
Or not having any wind. It would be funny if there is another "Windy day in Arizona", hehehehe....
But, as for *today's* launch. It wasn't faked: they managed to capture their own analog of Captain Braxton, Ken Starling, and the Federation Timeship Aeon. And, worst yet, they will travel the time line to eradicate you for lies you WILL spout, hehehhe....
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
You misspelled "historical". Yes, a space walk would be a historical event.
That's ok, you misspelled "grammar". While we're on the subject, "a space walk would be an historical event".
Nice try, anyway. Believable, if it weren't for the "a/an" thing.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4818797235866774489&ei=-zzcSLmBJpSmwgPf9omkCw&q=snl+died
The story about the fireworks can be found here for those interested BTW.
It fell. Pretty obvious really, moon is up there, we are down here. That's how gravity works. The moon's pretty unstable - look at how it keeps changing shape. Amazing anything really stays up there. I believe they tried to throw it back but it just fell again.
Google News will never make such silly mistakes like Xinhua does. They only reincarnate the old ones. Subscribe to Google News today!
Just imagine this. Imagine that when you write something, it takes time to be approved by the various layers of management and government. That these things need to be signed off on at more levels than you can count, and if you try to print or broadcast anything without having the approval of every single minister and official who could conceivably have an interest in it then you risk losing your job, being sent up country for a little 're-education', or accidentally tripping while in the back seat of a police car and tragically shooting yourself in the back of the head when you hit the seat.
Now imagine trying to give a live news broadcast of an important event, one in which everyone in the country, or at least everyone in the government, is going to be watching and paying very close attention to every word you say. And if you slip up and suggest that the yuhangyuans' space suits were in danger of leaking, or hint that the launch was delayed due to a malfunction in the Shenzhou's life support systems which might have killed everybody, or even if you slip up and refer to the yuhangyuans as Rik, Neil and Vyvyan, then you're going to have about twelve and a half seconds in which to say good bye to your career, family and friends.
But, hey, no pressure.
Under those circumstances, wouldn't you want to take a little time to be prepared?
Hanlon's other razor applies here. Never attribute to a massive government conspiracy that which can be easily explained by a healthy dose of good, old-fashioned paranoia.
Some post here describe the faked launch as an usual practice in reporting news.
For a given event you have two articles with the possible outcomes ready in order to be able to pub lish faster.
That is applicable to newspapers or any order printed press media, where there is the need to send the article to the printing presses, usually having to wait to the last minute (or second).
But faking a rocket launch this way? With audio! Sorry but I do not buy it. Have you ever seen a news on TV preparing to different videos of an interview or of an real world event? Not even in the radio broadcast they do such things
There is something funny or damn right dumb here.
The problem is not that they used special effects for the crowd. The problem is that they showed up something different from what the live audience saw and pretended that that's what they really saw.
NBC commentators said during the scene: "Your looking at a cinematic device, employed by Zhang Yimou here. This is actually almost animation. "
What's part of that didn't you understand? Additionally, if that wasn't clear, it's hardly the fault of the Chinese that the commentators didn't make it clear for you.
This is the problem here. They wrote up an article with completely fake dialog that might have plausibly happened and expected to deceive us all. If they'd said, "The conversation in the cockpit when something like this..." we'd be fine, because we'd be on notice that this is a fictional telling. It's the intent to pull the wool over our eyes that offends in a way that an impressible special effect or magic trick does not.
Numerous people have pointed out this is probably either filler dialog or scripted dialog that is expected to be said, a practice employed by media outlets around the world. Why do you feel the need to ignore this and jump to the conclusion of deception?
Whilst I wasn't reading the news, I sure was watching it on (livedelayed telecast). They looked extremely bored and unmoved sitting there in their seats playing with notebooks and pens in 0-gravity.
Hu Jintao went around and shook everyones hands at the command station. That might have been pre-recorded though - in fact I thought it was.
Still, I love space etc, and I was excited to see it all happening.
Bad comparison...sure here in the U.S. speeches and articles are put together ahead of time with specifics added at the end...
that's the difference...we wait to add the quotations until someone actually says them
with the Obama election article example...for this comparison to be valid, this Obama article you speak of would have to include quotations from a speech he hasn't given yet...
the chinese article had quotations of conversations that *hadn't happened yet*
you can't downplay the difference...it's the difference between getting a head start on an article to meet deadline and bold face lying propaganda
Thank you Dave Raggett
Some consider China a threat. When ruled by ideology, group think, and the lowest common denominator, this is what you get.
May I please have my frontal lobotomy if I bring back the ashtrays?
NBC commentators said during the scene: "Your looking at a cinematic device, employed by Zhang Yimou here. This is actually almost animation. "
What's part of that didn't you understand? Additionally, if that wasn't clear, it's hardly the fault of the Chinese that the commentators didn't make it clear for you.
I didn't actually watch the opening ceremonies. I'm not a big pageantry fan. If they made a comment that that's what was being done, then I don't see what the fuss was about, but all the articles I read in the news gave the impression that that wasn't mentioned.
However, if those were the words spoken, then that's not very clear at all. A "cinematic device" could mean practically anything -- from an admission of computer-edited broadcast to a description of "real, live" special effects on the ground like one would use in making a non-CGFX movie to a commentary on the way he was telling the story in the pageant, and "actually almost animation" makes it seems like it's not actually animation. Do you see how ambiguous those words are and why people might've been confused?
Numerous people have pointed out this is probably either filler dialog or scripted dialog that is expected to be said, a practice employed by media outlets around the world. Why do you feel the need to ignore this and jump to the conclusion of deception?
A) Because being "filler" or "scripted" dialog in no way makes this not deception -- in fact that makes it explicitly deception.
B) "All the cool kids do it too!" is no defense for any kind of wrongdoing.
C) Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that we don't *like* the practice of faking dialog and presenting it to the public as real, no matter the motivations behind it.
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)? Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
Doing a little prep-work for a final article is one thing. Putting the words into the mouths of real people connected with real historical events and passing them off as the truth is another.
Do we really live in such a cynical, post-truth world that this doesn't matter at all to you?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
The difference between dummy text and "deception" is that the dummy text is not supposed to end up published. It seems likely that this article was published by accident, which makes it likely that this is in fact dummy text. I did not read any part of the parent's post that defended the publishing of propaganda.
Perhaps you wrote your reply in advance, not reading what you replied to, and accidentally posted it.
No, THEY didn't, your media outlet did.
How did you watch the games, by Chinese broadcast, or by your own country's broadcaster? I watched the intro on Australian, Canadian and American networks and got different views of the opening ceremonies.
One of those even bothered to point out that the footsteps were taped beforehand and given to the outlets as pre-made footage to be played.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
The difference between dummy text and "deception" is that the dummy text is not supposed to end up published. It seems likely that this article was published by accident, which makes it likely that this is in fact dummy text. I did not read any part of the parent's post that defended the publishing of propaganda.
Your argument is known as "begging the question."
1) Dummy text and deception differ in that dummy text isn't intended to be published.
2) The article was accidentally published.
3) Therefore the text in the article was dummy text and can't be an attempt at deception.
That's nonsense. You presuppose that scripted events can't be accidentally released and that the accidental release of the article proves that it's not deliberate falsehood. Your logic is built on a foundation of sand.
Just because the article was published by accident doesn't mean that what's in the article isn't propaganda that was going to go out later if the accident hadn't occurred. The level of specific detail -- including conversations and comments on the timing of events -- suggest a finished story, reporting on facts that could not be determined until after the events actually happened. Frankly, the effort at scripting the story before it happened smacks of a disregard for what would come later.
If they'd published it after the launch, most people would not have known -- after all, the conversations between the craft and ground control are unlikely to be independently recorded by observers and double-checked. Fact is, there's little chance they would've gotten caught, so why not fake things? Only their slip in publishing let people know that it was going on.
Frankly, we have every reason to be suspicious of a state-run newspaper in an autocratic country reporting on events deeply tied up in national pride.
Perhaps you wrote your reply in advance, not reading what you replied to, and accidentally posted it.
Cute. Do they still give gold stars for cleverness at your grade level?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Can we get over the stupid fireworks thing already? It was explained right on the TV that the fireworks were not the actual fireworks. I forget the reason -- might have been for the view they wanted, it would have been dangerous to helicopters. The show took place, it was just simulated on TV.
I didn't actually watch the opening ceremonies. I'm not a big pageantry fan. If they made a comment that that's what was being done, then I don't see what the fuss was about, but all the articles I read in the news gave the impression that that wasn't mentioned.
So you're saying you were presenting arguments on this topic when you had no clue what was reality and were just repeating what others were saying because "All the cool kids do it too!"
However, if those were the words spoken, then that's not very clear at all. A "cinematic device" could mean practically anything -- from an admission of computer-edited broadcast to a description of "real, live" special effects on the ground like one would use in making a non-CGFX movie to a commentary on the way he was telling the story in the pageant, and "actually almost animation" makes it seems like it's not actually animation. Do you see how ambiguous those words are and why people might've been confused?
So China is to blame because NBC didn't choose better words. Also, adding special effects to a video doesn't fit most definitions of animation.
A) Because being "filler" or "scripted" dialog in no way makes this not deception -- in fact that makes it explicitly deception.
Sure, the press release was misleading because it was accidentally posted early. But you were making the original argument that the Chinese were intentionally trying to deceive everyone, because of the filler/scripted dialog. If it were filler/scripted dialog, and the pre-written announcement was accidentally posted early, that would negate your original argument, which is what I was replying to.
B) "All the cool kids do it too!" is no defense for any kind of wrongdoing.
Accidentally posting pre-written announcements isn't wrongdoing. Having pre-written announcement isn't wrongdoing. Pre-written announcement also are not holy documents that cannot be updated when the real event occurs, since they are suppose to be posted after the event.
C) Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that we don't *like* the practice of faking dialog and presenting it to the public as real, no matter the motivations behind it.
Maybe it hasn't dawned on you that the filler/scripted dialog does not prove that it was intentional deception. And I take it that you have done a study that shows the general public in the US (or else where) don't like the practice of pre-written press announcements because of the the possibility of accidentally posting it early. Are you planning to organize a boycott to make this opinion clear to the media outlets?
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)?
I'm not, I'm just pointing out flaws in your incorrect assertion that China is intentionally deceiving the everyone, because of filler/scripted dialog in a pre-written announcement. The people in China obviously are not dumb. If they really want to deceive everyone, they would release the press announcement after the scheduled launch. Releasing it before doesn't help them deceive people. By Occam's razor, it's most logical that this is the accidental posting of a pre-written announcement. Nothing points to the need to jump to the conclusion of intentional deception.
Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
This had nothing to do with faking video. A video can be provided live whereas a press release cannot be written and edited withing seconds of the actual event, so your analogy is simply incorrect.
Doing a little prep-work for a final article is one thing. Putting the words into the mouths of real people co
So you're saying you were presenting arguments on this topic when you had no clue what was reality and were just repeating what others were saying because "All the cool kids do it too!"
Forgive me for trusting the news. I forgot I was dealing with someone who doesn't believe the news should have any integrity.
So China is to blame because NBC didn't choose better words. Also, adding special effects to a video doesn't fit most definitions of animation.
I don't care who is to blame. I still can't even get straight from reading on it who actually edited the footage -- was it China or NBC? I'm not even really worked up about this issue compared to the launch story.
Geez, you're the one who brought up the fireworks in the first place! And did so, purely as a way of mocking people who care about faked news as being too stupid to realize that a flying person would have to be faked. And you seem far more interested in that than the real issue here. Can we please get back to that instead of focusing on your ludicrous attempt to paint people as only getting upset because they're gullible?
Sure, the press release was misleading because it was accidentally posted early. But you were making the original argument that the Chinese were intentionally trying to deceive everyone, because of the filler/scripted dialog. If it were filler/scripted dialog, and the pre-written announcement was accidentally posted early, that would negate your original argument, which is what I was replying to.
I think the preponderance of evidence leads to the belief that the text was meant to go out as is. There is a cohesive narrative, dialog, and descriptions of the timing of events as if they had already happened.
This isn't the kind of stuff you'd normally prep ahead of time if you expected to fill it in with the real events later. This is a puff piece meant to tell a stirring story to brag about how awesome they are. This is PR -- and truth is often sacrificed there.
What is your explanation for the way the piece was written up? A reporter just exercising some creative talent only to wipe it all away later when the real story came in?
The people in China obviously are not dumb. If they really want to deceive everyone, they would release the press announcement after the scheduled launch. Releasing it before doesn't help them deceive people.
You're presupposing now (in contrast to previous posts) that the release must be deliberate. The puff, propaganda piece painting a story of rousing success in space flight is prepped ahead of time. The events of the launch will probably be very much *like* what is in the piece, but the authors don't care about what actually will happen unless there's a disaster. No one cares what the astronauts actually *say* as long as the story is good. In fact, they probably have alternate pieces ready in case something bad does happen.
Then, unexpectedly, the prepared piece gets released early.
The real controversy is not, "OMG! The Chinese were going to say things went great no matter what actually happened!" It's, "The Chinese news doesn't care what the real events were as long as the story is good." It's that contempt for the public that bothers me.
By Occam's razor, it's most logical that this is the accidental posting of a pre-written announcement.
Occam's Razor is that "entities should not be multiplied without necessity." In other words, don't add complications.
Why would someone write a story like this if they intended to erase it later? It just doesn't make sense to have this level of detail about the events of the launch if the person cared about replacing the story with the real events. There is no motivation for doing so. However, propaganda is an easily understood motivation -- especially for state-run media covering events of importance
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Forgive me for trusting the news. I forgot I was dealing with someone who doesn't believe the news should have any integrity.
Where did I say we should blindly believe what the media outlets tell us? I have only been pointing out that the dialog is consistent with an accidental posting of a pre-written announcement.
Geez, you're the one who brought up the fireworks in the first place! And did so, purely as a way of mocking people who care about faked news as being too stupid to realize that a flying person would have to be faked. And you seem far more interested in that than the real issue here. Can we please get back to that instead of focusing on your ludicrous attempt to paint people as only getting upset because they're gullible?
No I didn't. I joined the conversation after your reply http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=976455&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=25159869#25160389. You were already on this topic before my reply. Also it was brought up in the summary of this slashdot article. And you should also note in your reply, you assigned blame on China about the fireworks in an attempt to emphasize your argument of propaganda for this current event.
I think the preponderance of evidence leads to the belief that the text was meant to go out as is. There is a cohesive narrative, dialog, and descriptions of the timing of events as if they had already happened.
Where is this preponderance of evidence? And have you seen the Chinese press release in question? If so please provide me a link because it might help me understand your argument better. If not, aren't you just repeating what AP said. If I remember correctly, that didn't turn out so well the last time around.
The AP report (on Yahoo) only provided 6 excerpts. That is clearly not the whole article and provided no context on when it was used.
This isn't the kind of stuff you'd normally prep ahead of time if you expected to fill it in with the real events later. This is a puff piece meant to tell a stirring story to brag about how awesome they are. This is PR -- and truth is often sacrificed there.
What is your explanation for the way the piece was written up? A reporter just exercising some creative talent only to wipe it all away later when the real story came in?
Again unfortunately, based on the only source I have (Yahoo/AP), I cannot jump to this conclusion. Without seeing the actual accidental posting, I don't see how anyone can jump to that conclusion, unless they are just blindly believing in the AP story. Those excerpts could easily be small parts of the whole press release made up to give an idea what kind of dialog should really go there. In which case, when the event occurs, 10 lines or so will be replaced with the actual events rather than writing a whole article. Please share with us your source, since you seem pretty confident in you position despite the lack of information from the AP story.
You're presupposing now (in contrast to previous posts) that the release must be deliberate.
No, my argument was that it would not make sense for the Chinese to release it early in order to intentionally deceive people.
The puff, propaganda piece painting a story of rousing success in space flight is prepped ahead of time. The events of the launch will probably be very much *like* what is in the piece, but the authors don't care about what actually will happen unless there's a disaster. No one cares what the astronauts actually *say* as long as the story is good. In fact, they probably have alternate pieces ready in case something bad does happen.
Then, unexpectedly, the prepared piece gets released early.
The real controversy
Why are you so quick to jump to defend the practice of pulling the wool over the public's eyes with scripted, PR spin of a historical event? Is this something you support the media doing (state-run or not)? Would Apollo 11 have been better if NASA had actually recorded the conversations with Neil Armstrong on a sound-stage?
Media has moved on in the last 40-ish years. Prepping a press release is nothing new (as many have commented). I suppose you think Armstrong just stepped down off that ladder and suddenly was inspired to speak those words without any preparation or oversight from a "media communications manager"?
If USA's [alleged! lol] moon landing was happening now you could be sure that NASA would have press releases with picture from inside the orbiter (taken pre-flight) and the quote of the first words from the moon pre-layed up and ready for near-simultaneous release with the LM landing.
From the article (which is quite poetic), the "dummy quotes" are all things that they will say (assuming they're not all killed before they get chance).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080925/ap_on_re_as/as_china_space_article_1:
'One minute to go!'
'Changjiang No.1 found the target!'...
'The air pressure in the cabin is normal!'
That guy that says "One minute", well every trial run that's what he said, it's part of the mission. The guy that says "Changjiang 1 on target", you guessed it, he says that so everyone knows it's on target. Air pressure, ..., someone checks it every few minutes and announces the results occasionally.
The only bit in the article that's a little weird is the "target is captured 12 seconds ahead of the predicted time". But they perhaps predicted a time 12 seconds late on purpose, or are just using that as a device to show how 1337 they are.
Imagine you're writing an article about Bush addressing the nation you might prep with:
"Bush had his usual statesman like swagger as he approached the dais, 'fellow Americans' he drawled, before telling us we should give up our hard won cash to support those billionaires who'd gone one gamble to far. Why? 'stability' says President Bush whilst Obama and McCain look on silently praying Mammon that such stability can be bought before their term starts ..."
That's got to be pretty close?
As has already been pointed out, the linked to fireworks slashdot story was already piss poor sensationalism. The fireworks were announced around the world as being CGI. So the entire story basically said "some obviously fake fireworks that were said to be fake when shown were fake". No shit sherlock.
And now we got a story that a news agency accidently released a pre-written story. Not like we never heard of obituraries being printed ahead of time. Anyone who has ever worked in the news industry knows that you prepare AHEAD of time.
Hell, even advertising does this. Or do you think that during events like soccer championships the advertise executives sit glued to the tv screen then the moment the result is in start putting together the add in a matter of hours to be included in tomorrows newspaper celebrating/mourning the match? Hell no, you prepare the ad campaign in advance for all outcomes.
For the uneducated editors of slashdot: Most christmas scenes/photo's etc etc are NOT shot during christmas. They are created in mid summer with FAKE snow.
Most christmas/newyears specials are recorded MONTHS in advance.
A lot of short tv programs with live audiences are recorded back to back on a single day to be aired on different days.
Star Wars was NOT a war documentary on a battle that happened in a galaxy far far away.
More and more reading the summary on slashdot is a joke, the actual story is not in the linked articles but in the comments. Slashdot would improve an awful lot of we could get rid of the editors and make it purely user contributed. Mmm, wait a moment, that is digg. Nevermind.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Thing is, if you watched the opening via other channels, you'd know that the firework footprints you were seeing weren't real, BUT not faked - because the announcers/commentators would have told you that they weren't real.
Just because the channel you're watching doesn't tell you the details doesn't mean it's faked.
The Olympics ceremony was all a show. In movies they often have someone else singing instead of the star, in fact they also have body doubles. Given the amount of cheating in the Olympics, I'd cynically say that it's very in line with the real spirit of the games. Put on a good show and hope you don't get caught.
Lastly, while the Chinese are most certainly corrupt, there has been some accountability - the food safety head actually resigned. I believe the one before him was executed - he was found guilty of taking bribes etc.
They most certainly didn't get a USD20 million "golden parachute" package as a reward.
..for "Capricorn 1" ?
Let us not forget the price that was (and still being) paid for all that perfection. The very liberties that allow you to read this post does not and cannot exist in a political state of nature, the finest expression thereof we all had witnessed this past summer. People in uniform fought and died to carve out this realm in which we live and enjoy. The greatest freedom of all is the freedom to fail without fearing bad things coming from the government as a consequence.
The measure of a culture is what happens to people's humanity in their quest for achievement.
Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
You misspelled "grammar". :-)
Boundless Expansion, Self-Transformation, Dynamic Optimism, Intelligent Technology, Spontaneous Order- BEST DO IT SO!
I am not sure if other news agencies are like this, but you normally have much of your article written out before hand, one for success, one for failure, that way, when it happens, you can just edit a couple of details, and be the first to have your article out. Its the world of media we live in. I mean, how can you have up-to-the-minute news if the person is too busy writing the article? The dialog sounds just like the script that NASA uses on most of their missions. You copy and paste, and if anything varies, you change the details before publishing.
What seems to have happened in this case is that someone hit "Publish" instead of "Save Draft". From the article, the mistake was noticed within a couple of hours and the article was taken down. Its not like they faked the launch.
We'le wharels on the moon,
We cally a halpoon.
But thele ain't no whares
So we terr tarr tares
And sing oul wharing tune.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
That ultimately no one really cares if you lie and there are zero true repercussions?
Besides, in 6 months everyone will forget you did it anyway.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, and he screwed it up.
I thought they demonstrated that radio transmissions stomped on his "a" before "man."
Or did they fake that too?
[UID-HeinzIntel]
coming soon... melamine-fortified.
...Lorenzo / I'm into kinky crustaceans. I just discovered internet praWn.
Yeah, I think the fireworks thing was a non-issue and probably shouldn't even have been mentioned.
There are plenty of legitimate things that China can be criticized for, and of those things, this one is pretty weak.
A staffer from the Xinhuanet.com Web site who answered the phone Thursday said the posting of the article was a "technical error" by a technician.
In other words, they hadn't intended to reveal that they have a working time machine prototype... it was supposed to be a top-secret project. Somebody'll lose their job over that one.
In a followup story, an unidentified Chinese official was quoted saying, "I want that technician fired — and I want him fired yesterday!"
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
Everything I find indicates that the "A" vs. "An" determination is made based on the first sound of the next word. By that rule, "A historical event" is correct usage. Do you have different information?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
I would have thought you would make dummy text obviously dummy text to reduce the risk of it making it into the final version by accident.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Japan has just completed their ladder to heaven and have declared heaven an official part of Japan because they got there first.
"They're always after me_lucky_charms!"
Hm; I will say it's not as clear as I expected. I can't find a definitive source for either as 'correct' - though I can find plenty of debates over which one /is/ correct :)
The poster above me accuses people of being so gullible as to not know that and tries to confuse the issue of pre-written press releases with special effects used in the opening ceremonies.
I dispute that and say that these are two different things and that people don't mind deceptions they know about (to entertain them) but do mind deceptions they don't know about (to trick them), and I get modded a Troll?
Geez, you people got so worked up in defense of bad media practices, it's ridiculous.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
No I didn't. I joined the conversation after...
Yeah, my bad. You're not level4.
As for everything else, fine... just fine. The moderators have spoken, and people who think that it's okay to write these sorts of "truthiness"-filled pieces in anticipation of events have more support than me.
So, "Dewey Defeats Truman!" and all that. You people deserve the world the media shapes for you, where it's more important to be entertaining and first to get the reader's eyeballs than to be accurate and honest -- where it's okay to write up a narrative about events without being there. Maybe they'll replace it with the real events, maybe not -- who cares? We should just trust that they're willing to do the right thing after spending so much effort having the wrong thing ready to go.
It's moments like these that I get really discouraged about the future of democracy.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Just like Bush announced victory in the war of Iraq /years/ before the retreat.
:(){