Inaccuracy in reporting astronomy and science Options

[As old as Voyage...]

I have just watched the BBC's report on the newly created 3D map of dark matter using Hubble data; and it made my heart sink.

I applaud the BBC for giving airtime to such discoveries, but for such a respected organisation their research was awful.

It's no wonder the vast majority of people are either bewildered or disinterested the the universe as a whole when the facts they are given are completely wrong.

It's a shame that tonight 60 million or so people in the UK and many other people around the world were told Hubble shone a beam of light out into the depths of the universe and studied how it was bent by the gravity of dark matter billions of light years away!

And this was a report from the BBCs science correspondant!

I remain downhearted that perhaps the most important story of the week was reported in such a shoddy manner.

Does anyone else feel space is being let down by TV coverage?

[ngunn]

Yes you would, but...

Hands up anyone (other than Doug and Emily) who doesn't find all these acronyms confusing? They fail completely in their purpose as names because they are 1/ on the surface meaningless 2/ unimaginative and therefore unmemorable and 3/ not even unique, apparently. I'm just glad Cassini is called Cassini and not something like SOASHIVS.