If you read just the headline from this Telegraph article, you might think it’s the biggest scientific discovery of all time:
Mars rover finds signs of microbial life
Wow! But if you read the actual article, you might be a tad bit disappointed:
Nasa says its Mars rover Spirit has discovered “the best evidence yet” of a past habitable environment on the planet’s surface.
Spirit has been exploring a plateau called Home Plate, where it discovered silica-rich soil in May.
Researchers are now trying to determine what produced the patch of nearly pure silica – the main ingredient of window glass.
They believe the deposits came from an ancient hot-spring environment or an environment called a fumarole, in which acidic steam rises through cracks.
On Earth, both of these types of settings teem with microbial life, said rover chief scientist Steve Squyres.
Yes, on Earth we find lots of bugs in such places. But fumaroles would exist without life, and if we find them on Mars that doesn’t mean we’ve actually uncovered signs of life. For that, we’d actually have to find some, y’know, signs of life.
Duh.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Yeah, well we already know that science reporting on the habitability/extraterrestrial life thing tends to be hyperbolic. After all, they went screaming about how Gliese 581c was right in the middle of the habitable zone and only later pointed out that the greenhouse effect would likely make the planet too hot for liquid water, by which time the media had lost interest…
December 11th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
“Spirit and its twin rover Opportunity have remained on Mars for much longer than originally planned.”
Really? When were we planning on getting them back?
December 11th, 2007 at 5:58 pm
Man, I thought such over-sensationalism was reserved for digg.
December 11th, 2007 at 7:19 pm
If they’re going to overstate the case, why not kick it up a notch to really pull in the readers.
How about “Mars rover finds footprints of life”
or “Mars rover infested with Martian algae”
or “Mars rover tracks red Yeti”
no, “Mars rover captures red Yeti”
Wheeeeeeeeeeee!
December 11th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Wow, that is just terribly off base, but it could be worse:
“Mars Rover Sees Monolith”
“Mars Rover Finds Jesus, Literally”
“Mars Rover Finds Evidence of Martian Silicon Valley”
December 12th, 2007 at 12:45 am
[...] Telegraph puts up most misleading headline everBy The Bad AstronomerBut fumaroles would exist without life, and if we find them on Mars that doesn’t mean we’ve actually uncovered signs of life. For that, we’d actually have to find some, y’know, signs of life. …Bad Astronomy Blog – http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog [...]
December 12th, 2007 at 1:13 am
I was very surprised to see such a badly titled article in such a normally sensible newspaper as the Telegraph. They’re usually good and accurate on science reporting and should have known better…
December 12th, 2007 at 4:38 am
The Mars rovers are a hoax. They’re actually roaming the Arizona desert. In fact, if you look carefully at some of the photos, you can see illegal aliens crossing the border in the background.
December 12th, 2007 at 5:03 am
The BBC news site had a similiar report.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7137793.stm
December 12th, 2007 at 5:25 am
Could be worse:
“Mars rovers squashed by giant shapeshifting robot. Now to appear in Micheal Bay movie”
December 12th, 2007 at 5:55 am
Some of the hills that Spirit rolled over look like the perfect place for scorpions. Why has nobody reported THAT?
December 12th, 2007 at 5:56 am
I wonder what Mr Hoagland is going to do with this story…
December 12th, 2007 at 8:40 am
> “Mars rovers squashed by giant shapeshifting robot. Now to appear in Micheal Bay movie”
What you don’t know is that the Mars rovers are giant shapeshifting robots.
In disguise.
Using the same G1 principle of “Conservation of mass? BAH!” that allowed six-meter-tall Soundwave to hide as a boombox on a desk.
December 12th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Newspapers resorting to sensationalism to sell copies? What next?
December 12th, 2007 at 10:15 am
I wouldn’t go as far as to call the Telegraph ‘normally sensible’, unless you consider somewhere right of Genghis Khan as sensible, but their science coverage is generally good.
However, this is reflected in the actual article. The headline will not have been written by the person who wrote the article but by a sub-editor who knows nothing about science and just skimmed the story (that’s the way these things work). This often leads to good stories with really weird (and sometimes misleading or even completely contradictory) headlines.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
Mars Rover discovers evidence for not-really-terribly-inteligent vanished civilization…
December 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am
… erm…. that’s ‘intelligent’.
(Bangs head…)
I meant to do that. Really.
December 12th, 2007 at 10:46 am
Spirit saw its own reflection in the silica (it’s the main ingredient of window glass, after all) and figured that the rover was a sign of not only life but of an intelligent designer. The headline should have been “Mars Rover Finds God.”
December 12th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
Once in a while I get the subtle feeling that you guys get as much pleasure out of saying different things don’t contain any signs of life what so ever.
Reminds me of an Onion article I read once:
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/38618
Someday when 100 percent unmistakeable signs of life are found somewhere in space, I can imagine you guys saying, “La-la-la-lah, I’m not listening to you!!! There is nooooooo life in the universe!!!!” Kinda like Bagdad Bob.
December 12th, 2007 at 3:19 pm
lol @ CQT. Personally I’d rather have an announcement of the discovery of extraterrestrial life that is momentous, rather than having it ruined by a bunch of “crying wolf” and bad journalism.
(Though an extraterrestrial wolf would be pretty cool, no…)