No More About The Balloon Please!!

[Drone Master]

Although we were captured by the images and video,, but when is it enough?
Please agree if the networks are over playing this.
Let's get to the facts of the equipment on board first. If recoverable.
Please keep this topic non political! DM....

 

[FLDave]

And the overplaying continues here. It's all political news.

 

[msinger]

Please agree if the networks are over playing this

The networks over play everything they can in the name of making money

 

[4 inch pistons]

Let’s talk about something non political like masks.

 

[sar104]

The networks over play everything they can in the name of making money

Apart from a few outlets clearly trying to create a narrative, the media networks are mostly just reporting the event and the political response to the event. That's their job.

 

[Drone Master]

Lets talk about what equipment could be on board this vessel. As we are all curious about it's technology.
We can speculate now until the truth comes out after analysis.
What type of cameras, sensors, radio and satellite transmitters, Etc.?

 

[msinger]

Apart from a few outlets clearly trying to create a narrative, the media networks are mostly just reporting the event and the political response to the event. That's their job.

You would think they'd do their job, but they only report on the things that they want to be covered. If they were really doing their job, they'd be reporting all things Americans should be aware of. And that simply isn't happening (never has).

 

[sar104]

You would think they'd do their job, but they only report on the things that they want to be covered. If they were really doing their job, they'd be reporting all things Americans should be aware of. And that simply isn't happening (never has).

Maybe, but if you think that significant subjects are not being covered then I'd first have to question your choice of news outlets. I'm not seeing that problem at all.

 

[msinger]

Maybe, but if you think that significant subjects are not being covered then I'd first have to question your choice of news outlets. I'm not seeing that problem at all.

As I often tell my wife, news is for entertainment purposes only. One should never assume they are covering the entire story or all stories that matter.

Also, they are companies that are in business to make money (makes sense). They aren't going to report on anything that is detrimental to their business.

 

[sar104]

As I often tell my wife, news is for entertainment purposes only. One should never assume they are covering the entire story or all stories that matter.

Also, they are companies that are in business to make money (makes sense). They aren't going to report on anything that is detrimental to their business.

Well you answered my question, though possibly unintentionally. If you are restricting your news sources to news entertainment outlets then your observation is definitely spot on. But actual news outlets make money by reporting real news. Doing that well is their primary source of success (revenue from views/hits etc.). Competition between them keeps them honest, just like in any other business. And from a reader perspective, comparison of their reporting provides a good assessment of their reliability.

 

[msinger]

Well you answered my question, though possibly unintentionally. If you are restricting your news sources to news entertainment outlets then your observation is definitely spot on.

I'm not sure what you mean by a news entertainment outlet. I guess you mean like People Magazine?

I only pay attention to mainstream news outlets -- and enjoy a variety as it's common knowledge they are controlled by political parties. Paying attention to only one news outlet doesn't really give you a good picture of news being covered.

But actual news outlets make money by reporting real news. Doing that well is their primary source of success (revenue from views/hits etc.). Competition between them keeps them honest, just like in any other business.

IMHO, actual news is only a tool to control people. I don't recommend anyone only watch the news (and especially not from only one source) to understand what's going on in the world. And, sadly, this is what the average person does.

 

[sar104]

I'm not sure what you mean by a news entertainment outlet. I guess you mean like People Magazine?

No - I mean whatever you are watching that you classify as news for entertainment purposes.

I only pay attention to mainstream news outlets -- and enjoy a variety as it's common knowledge they are controlled by political parties.

Again, you appear to be referring to a remarkably limited set of outlets.

Paying attention to only one news outlet doesn't really give you a good picture of news being covered.

IMHO, actual news is only a tool to control people. I don't recommend anyone only watch the news (and especially not from only one source) to understand what's going on in the world. And, sadly, this is what the average person does.

So which is it? Your original claim that news reporting is for entertainment only, and does not report real news:"

If they were really doing their job, they'd be reporting all things Americans should be aware of. And that simply isn't happening (never has).​

Or that simply choosing your news sources wisely (and I don't mean by confirmation bias criteria) does get you comprehensive and impartial news:

I don't recommend anyone only watch the news (and especially not from only one source) to understand what's going on in the world.​

 

[msinger]

So which is it? Your original claim that news reporting is for entertainment only, and does not report real news

I meant I treat it as entertainment only. I don't believe any news source is trying to report fake news. However, news sources in general are biased and don't share all of the most important stories. They tend to share stories that make them money or cause them not to lose money. Again, they are businesses -- they aren't here to do the work of the people at their own expense.

Again, you appear to be referring to a remarkably limited set of outlets.

Yes, it is indeed a very limited set as my time is limited. Those mainstream news outlets include the following:

• ABC News
• CBS News
• CNN
• Fox News
• MSNBC
• NBC News
• The New York Times
• USA Today
• The Wall Street Journal
• The Washington Post

FWIW, I'm sharing my opinions here. I can appreciate that your opinions might not match mine (and I would never expect that).

 

[sar104]

Yes, it is indeed a very limited set as my time is limited. Those mainstream news outlets include the following:

• ABC News
• CBS News
• CNN
• Fox News
• MSNBC
• NBC News
• The New York Times
• USA Today
• The Wall Street Journal
• The Washington Post

FWIW, I'm sharing my opinions here. I can appreciate that your opinions might not match mine (and I would never expect that).

That's not a bad selection, although it is very limited in scope - just large US news corporations. But several of them do pretty good investigative journalism. So can you point to any significant news that has not been pretty well covered by that set?

 

[msinger]

can you point to any significant news that has not been pretty well covered by that set?

Certainly. But, that would send you down a huge rabbit hole and you'd no doubt have many more great questions. And I don't want to take this thread off topic. Also, it would get very political and we'd then be violating forum rules.

 

[sar104]

Certainly. But, that would send you down a huge rabbit hole and you'd no doubt have many more great questions. And I don't want to take this thread off topic. Also, it would get very political and we'd then be violating forum rules.

Well then that was a rather futile discussion.

But to make one more general point - when your news sources span the entire range from right to left, doesn't it make you question why the (presumably mostly political) news that you apparently feel you are missing isn't reported anywhere on the spectrum? More particularly, whether perhaps it isn't actually news at all, but instead yet another "alternative facts" invention?

 

[msinger]

Well then that was a rather futile discussion.

Agreed. I didn't intend to head down that road. My only point was nearly all (or possibly all?) networks exist only to make money. They report stories (and sometimes reshare too many times) that will maximize their profits.

when your news sources span the entire range from right to left, doesn't it make you question why the (presumably mostly political) news that you apparently feel you are missing isn't reported anywhere on the spectrum?

Not at all. I think the majority of important stories are always shared by at least one mainstream news source.

 

[Chip]

I have been searching for a good current analysis of the balloon's likely technical surveillance capabilities but have not yet found one. About all I have learned is that satellite imaging remains the gold standard and there are two kinds, low altitude and high altitude geosynchronous. Low altitude may yield higher quality imagery but photo must be snapped at precise moment because satellite is moving at 18,000 mph. High altitude satellite cameras are capable of "persistent stare," because they are rotating at same speed as earth so they can remain on target indefinitely. But the camera is much farther away and the images may therefore be lower quality. An image take at 60,000 feet + balloon's slow moving "persistent stare," unhindered by weather, could be very beneficial. The fact that it has propellers, can be controlled and flew over missile silos, tells me it was espionage.

 

[sar104]

Agreed. I didn't intend to head down that road. My only point was nearly all (or possibly all?) networks exist only to make money. They report stories (and sometimes reshare too many times) that will maximize their profits.

To some extent. Where we apparently disagree is their strategy to make money. The sources that I support with subscriptions are those that appear to value in-depth and impartial reporting, rather than those that clearly either have an agenda or have concluded that they care more about entertaining their viewers/readers delusions than embracing reality.

Not at all. I think the majority of important stories are always shared by at least one mainstream news source.

Then it sounds like the news media is doing its job just fine, after all.

 

[sar104]

I have been searching for a good current analysis of the balloon's likely technical surveillance capabilities but have not yet found one. About all I have learned is that satellite imaging remains the gold standard and there are two kinds, low altitude and high altitude geosynchronous. Low altitude may yield higher quality imagery but photo must be snapped at precise moment because satellite is moving at 18,000 mph. High altitude satellite cameras are capable of "persistent stare," because they are rotating at same speed as earth so they can remain on target indefinitley. But the camera is much farther away and the images may therefore be lower quality. An image take at 60,000 feet + balloon's slow moving "persistent stare," unhindered by weather, could be very beneficial. The fact that it has propellers, can be controlled and flew over missile silos, tells me it was espionage.

Geostationary satellites are much too far away (~22,000 miles) to get good images. Surveillance satellites start at around 100 miles. A balloon at 12 miles has a resolution advantage if they are willing to put their best cameras on it, but that seems a bit unlikely without a robust self-destruct system since there is a high probability of payload capture, as just happened.

The propulsion system is certainly suggestive that the balloon might be more than just a scientific data collection vehicle, but maybe not conclusive. And there are credible alternatives to it primarily being an imaging platform - it could also have been intended to test US capabilities and responses. Or it might even have been intended to provoke just the kind of political strife that we have seen, even though cooler heads seem to be prevailing now.