Challenger explosion

They’re so many incidents where only one word has altered an issue. It’s all within how you say it. The news has always been known to use interesting and alarming words so that they can spice up their story and personify it over the other competitors. When you are competing with other news media the one way to captivate an audience with a headline. If so, shouldn't that headline be captivating? The real question I am going to address for this circumstance is NASA and how the media portrays its incidents. Over the last several years the media and the public has been losing interest over the NASA space program and taking less interest in the launches and flights. The only time they take notice is when something goes wrong. This is like many cases our media has come to report on, we don’t want the good news we only care when something wrong happens. The media will certainly give us “that” story because they love reporting on the tragedies and the disasters of our world, since it will contribute to their sales and numbers. The issue with the space program is that they are on a national budget. People’s money is going into this funding and the only time the nation sees their money in action is when it is fatally falling or blowing up in the sky. Meaning that when you are getting funding and possible needing more funding you don’t want the bad publicity of safety and ignorance pushing people away from the cause. So it makes all the difference to NASA when the media chooses choice words that represent the accidents that take place. If I were to describe something as a catastrophe or a disaster they might catch your attention of fault instead of sorrow. This is a similar situation that happened when the space shuttle Columbia didn’t make reentry with a safe landing. As the case study describes, there is a difference in the choice of words used to describe NASA’s incidents. Between the mournful stories by the television media and the newspapers, “have time to craft their stories” use words that more likely upraise anger or blame. When someone calls a story a tragedy much like CNN and MSNBC did, does it have an affect different then those newspapers like Washington Post and New York Times that use the word disaster? This is because in all stories the media dealing with an impact of publicity in a situation they can choose how to portray the story. An example of this would be 9/11 when the first stories came to head they focused on the loss and sorrow of the day and also focused on the American pride and cherishing those lost. No one attacked with blame, at least not right away, because it would dehumanize the event. When the shuttle exploded the media should have given the astronauts and the families the same courtesy because in whole, human life was lost. Using words to stir anger and speculation to NASA isn’t right, since the astronauts aboard loved working and contributing to NASA. Their mission would insist that their deaths not hurt the program in which they had given their lives to.