Chinese lunar scientist disputes the claim, saying site was within moon’s southern hemisphere but not in the polar region. Others agree, but one notes that landing a rover close the south pole ‘is already a major achievement’.
That wouldn’t explain such a big gap between American media and everyone else, but it would explain why some journalists might have gotten it wrong. Either way, it’s extremely lazy and negligent to just copy Reuters without looking for a primary source, especially when that primary source is literally a massive public figure.
That seems kinda inefficient though. Why do the newspapers exist and we don’t just get our news from Reuters directly?
I mean, other than the obvious competency issue, but as shown that applied to the newspapers too.
Sure, I’ll accept that, but it indicates a complete lack of editorial control and that journalists are being assigned articles they know absolutely nothing about.
Landing on the pole is extremely challenging and, from what I know of their space program, outside of India’s current capabilities. That fact should have been caught far before publication, but of the US news sources I could find only AP and NPR caught it.
Maybe the ones who got it wrong is because they got their copy from Reuters who got it wrong:
https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/key-facts-about-indias-chandrayaan-3-moon-mission-2023-08-21/
https://www.reuters.com/science/view-reactions-indias-chandrayaan-3-makes-historic-moon-landing-2023-08-23/
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-counts-down-crucial-moon-landing-2023-08-23/
https://www.reuters.com/science/why-are-countries-racing-moons-heavily-cratered-south-pole-2023-08-23/
(tho these 2 have maps showing all the landing locations)
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/chandrayaan-3-punches-home-indias-lead-budget-space-flights-2023-08-24/
That wouldn’t explain such a big gap between American media and everyone else, but it would explain why some journalists might have gotten it wrong. Either way, it’s extremely lazy and negligent to just copy Reuters without looking for a primary source, especially when that primary source is literally a massive public figure.
Reuters is a news wire — ie, newspapers pay to “copy” its stories. It’s not lazy. It’s why Reuters exists.
That seems kinda inefficient though. Why do the newspapers exist and we don’t just get our news from Reuters directly? I mean, other than the obvious competency issue, but as shown that applied to the newspapers too.
Sure, I’ll accept that, but it indicates a complete lack of editorial control and that journalists are being assigned articles they know absolutely nothing about.
Landing on the pole is extremely challenging and, from what I know of their space program, outside of India’s current capabilities. That fact should have been caught far before publication, but of the US news sources I could find only AP and NPR caught it.