Please note this post meanders a bit, it's something of a stream of disjointed thoughts.
So you've heard me yelling at TV reporters trying to do space stories because the boss said so.
It's amazing the stupid little mistakes they make, but then they're usually one of the juniors covering this
space thing dropped in their lap with 60 minutes to air time and the possibility that it wont even go out as it's only B filler.
A lot of space coverage, even in the Apollo era, was shoddy to say the least. We did have some decent people covering it over here in the British Isles, but they were long term resident science correspondents. They were actually chosen because they had a clue,
James Burke (wikipedia link) comes instantly to mind. But then we had very high quality public service channels over here in those days. (Note the past tense).
On the subject of detailed information, there are limits to how much detail the average layperson can tolerate.
Lately the networks are enjoying the novelty effect of the back-flip shots, but those are wearing thin already. If they had chosen to repair the tiles, that would have been worth watching, but wouldn't have been televised except by NASA TV. The truss assembly EVAs were interesting to watch. Watching close-up shots of the damage inspection is meaningless to the average person, they haven't a clue what they're looking at.
They need to make space sexy, and NASA is not the body to do that I'm afraid. They're also going to have to take a long hard look at some of their policies with regard to longterm missions such as trips to Mars. There is no way in hell you can ask people to live bottled up in a small space for years without some form of vice. Crew members
will get up to stuff. That's going to be interesting.