General Conclusions
After coding for the eight “categories” of variables and taking into account the intensity of coverage over time, some general conclusions emerge, namely:
- The number of headlines concerning the activities of the space program tended to decline over time, except during times of emergency or disaster.
- The priority given to space news in the New York Times lessened, as illustrated by the waning amount of front-page stories over time.
- Earlier astronauts tended to be portrayed within the context of a “humanizing” narrative, while later Space Shuttle astronauts tended to be referred to more generally.
- As time progressed and the public became more used to the idea of manned spaceflight, headlines with technical jargon became more commonplace. Additionally, headlines tended to refer to general programs rather than individual missions as spaceflight became routine.
- The Space Shuttle program was a source of skepticism and worry, especially during the 1980s and early 1990s.
- Foreign reaction, though generally more positive than negative, was variable and ultimately did not compose a significant portion of the 2,801 headlines examined.
Research Question Conclusions
1. Was either program treated with more fanfare or skepticism?
Given the variable degree of “positive” headlines in this study, it’s difficult to determine whether one program was treated with more fanfare than the other. What is evident, however, is the existence of changing opinions over time. That is, the Apollo missions were ripe with national pride, but so too were the first Space Shuttle missions. It was only after the mid-1990s, perhaps as the public became bored with looking skyward, that coverage in the New York Times of the space station became routine in terms of repeating stories, non-specific mentions of crafts and crews, and story settings solely based in space.
Determining which program was met with more skepticism is a bit easier. As illustrated by Chart 7.3, it’s clear that of the 147 missions analyzed, a vast minority had even one headline with a mention of skepticism. However, of these missions, the Space Shuttle’s dominated Apollo’s in terms of headlines implying worry or doubt.
Historically, this can be attributed to two things: the novel nature of a reusable spacecraft, and the repeated failures or fiascoes in space flight. Naturally, a brand new, reusable craft that was introduced into a world where capsules fell into the sea would promote curiosity in the form of skepticism. But the second, and most important, factor contributing to worrying headlines has to do with the shuttle program’s problems: the loss of Challenger and Columbia, the maintenance trips to Mir, the dysfunctional early Hubble Telescope, and the Space Shuttle’s various failed missions all contributed to a news landscape hungry to criticize.
2. Has there been a decline in narrative storytelling that has portrayed astronauts as heroes rather than routine mission specialists? Have astronauts been “dehumanized” in the eyes of the media?
This research question is more cut-and-dry. Given the decline of references to individual astronauts, the recent dearth of stories that “humanize” astronauts, and the dwindling number of tangential headlines not set in space or at mission control, it appears the Apollo astronauts were treated as heroes rather than nameless scientists playing for our team.
Over the 50 years spanned by Apollo and the Space Shuttle program, headlines have shrunk due to advances in digital printing. With the notable exception of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (whose husband, Scott Kelly, commanded two Space Shuttle missions), little to no reference was made to astronauts’ spouses in headlines other than during the Apollo mission.
Indeed, it seems the public took for granted the marvel of space travel, and this “normalcy” was reflected in the headlines of the New York Times. By “dehumanizing” astronauts, generalizing missions, and embracing the routine nature of space journalism, the Times parted ways with the narrative style that inspired consumers during the days of Apollo.
Limitations
This study is a decent primer for anyone interested in historical space journalism, but like any semi-scientific analysis there is always room for improvement.
The source addressed is only one of many publications, broadcasts, and reports that were generated throughout the histories of the Apollo and Space Shuttle programs. Additionally, this study only addresses the contents of headlines and the placement of stories. Future studies might conduct a more thorough investigation of space-related media.
Additionally, this method of headline analysis is better suited for events that occurred during a clearly definable period of time in the past. Analysis of current events – in space or otherwise – is difficult with this method. This is because this process relies on finite periods of time and a healthy dose of hindsight.
Suggestions for Future Journalism
NASA does a fantastic job of communicating information about studies, findings, launches, programs, missions, and basic operations of the agency via the Internet and NASA TV. On its website, the agency hosts interactive interviews, streams, links, data sets, and other media useful to amateur astronomers and curious taxpayers alike. Despite its proficiency at using new media to communicate what it’s doing to the public, however, a major downfall of this digital media empire is the fact that those uninterested in space are unlikely to access this “opt-in” type of media on their own.
The responsibility, then, lies with journalists and journalism organization to draw eyes to NASA’s activities. The trouble with this is that the public has come to take space travel for granted. And in the case of the New York Times, publications appear to agree. Unless the agency attempts something as novel as landing men on the moon in 1969 or christening a new type of spacecraft in 1981, journalists will be hard-pressed to make space exciting again.
One possible way to inspire news consumers might be to rely again on stories that “humanize” the people who make spaceflight possible. Because fewer Americans are currently regular space travelers, it would be prudent to highlight the personal qualities of NASA’s men and women on the ground.
Whatever the specific solution for exciting news consumers about space again, one general mandate exists.
We’ve got to make space fun again.
