Sky & Telescope August 1987 [antikvár]

focal pointSupernova 1987A and the PressThe debut of a "new star" was a tough act for the mass media to cover. Although SN 1987A was the astronomical event of the century (so far!), it couldn't have been predicted and took place in the far-southern sky, slowing communication with observers on the spot. For example, it took us most of a day to contact the discoverer in Chile, Ian Shelton of the University of Toronto.More difficulties arose because supernova researchers were scattered around the world, and a wide variety of instruments and disciplines was involved. Then, too, all the "hot" information passed informally by telephone, hurried conversations at hastily called meetings, and most of all by rumor. Finally, the physics of the blast was difficult and complicated to explain, while the energies, speeds, and densities involved let alone the properties of neutrinos were far removed from everyday experience. All in all, reporters had their work cut out for them.Interestingly, the story "broke" in fits and starts. Toronto astronomer Robert Garrison got the news early on February 24th, immediately called the local media, and awaited a tornado of publicity. To his surprise, "The story died right there." Disappointed but undaunted. Garrison contacted the university's office of community and public affairs, which set up a press conference the next afternoon. Michael Babad of United Press International then filed a fine story, though relatively few papers picked it up. The main surge of interest, as far as I can tell, began late on the 24th with an excellent Associated Press article by Lee Siegel in Los Angeles. His piece was widely reprinted in the next few days, though usually in truncated form.Some big-city papers assigned specialists to work up their own stories. How well they did usually depended on how much astronomy and how many astronomers they knew; things were breaking so fast that there was no time to catch up on the subject. Established science reporters did a pretty good job on the whole. On the other hand, uninformed writers often gave confused and sometimes bizarre "explanations," such as those that abounded in the early New York Times coverage. For example, the Times invoked the Doppler shift to explain the supernova's initialreddening, when the true cause was the fireball's expansion and resultant cooling.The vast majority of newspapers just ran a fraction of a column of wire-service copy, sometimes with an accompanying photograph. There was even weaker television coverage in the first days after the discovery: generally a brief story in less time than the weather and much less than sports sometimes accompanied by an interview with a local astronomer. Thisho-hum attitude was in stark contrast to what happened last year during the apparition of Halley's comet, a far less important event astronomically and a vastly less dramatic and spectacular one as well. Then every paper and television station overflowed with stories about the comet and interviews with local scientists, teachers, and amateur astronomers.This difference in coverage, along with Garrison's experience in Toronto, suggests that those who decide what is news are woefully ignorant about what science is important and what is interesting to the public. Reporters don't seem to be the problem as much as editors and executives who evidently have no idea of what to make of such a story or don't believe their own writers' statements about its significance. Most people study little science and that lack showed here.Usually the supernova received less space than did the daily astrology column.and of course it didn't run every day. The short shrift given the explosion is a symptom of the widespread but sadly mistaken view that science is a minor matter and can be ignored with no great loss to anyone.Still, somebody was on the ball, for SN 1987A leapt back into public view with Time's eight-page, March 23rd cover story. Millions of people got a good idea of what a supernova is and why this one is important from Time's excellent and surprisingly detailed article.Overall, scientists seemed fairiy well satisfied with the mass media's handling of the supernova story, considering how badly the subject might have been mangled and sensationalized. Naturally they wanted more coverage in keeping with the event's importance and rarity. The most common gripe concerned the New York Times' mistaken references to I987A as "Supernova Shelton."What would have happened had SN 1987A been visible from the northern climes where most people live? Media coverage no doubt would have been greater, but probably not by much if the treatment of Nova Cygni 1975 is any guide. That explosion peaked at magnitude 1.8 on the night of August 30-31 (it was the brightest new star since Nova Puppis 1942) and was almost overhead in the evening summer twilight for northern viewers. However, even under these favorable circumstances the event made very little stir in the press and got almost no television coverage.Not until May did SN 1987A reach its peak brightness of 3rd magnitude unprecedented behavior for a supernova and then begin a slow decline. Unfortunately most of the public was unaware of these interesting developments, for the story had largely faded from view in the mass media.However, now is the time for everyone interested in astronomy to make an effort to get to know their local reporters and editors. Regardless of what has happened elsewhere, we are overdue for a supernova in our own Milky Way galaxy. Perhaps, if we all work hard enough, the next great astronomical surprise will receive the coverage it deserves.RONALD A. SCHORNFocal Point invites contributions from read-ers who wish 10 comment on contemporaryissues in astronomy and space science.