Radio burst may be from a new object
The Australian, March 4, 2005

I did not like this article very much because the newspaper has made the discovery seem more important than it really is. They have made it out to be something spectacular with quotes such as “We hit the jackpot.” They repeat themselves by saying that there would be a race to scan for similar objects in the beginning of the article and that it will cause a stampede of further observations towards the end of the article.

The writer makes out as if something fabulous has been discovered but they don’t even know what caused the radio burst and say only that it may be from a new type of object. The writer also states that the burst could not have come from a pulsar but does not give any evidence as to why it could or could not.

The use of phrases such as “mysterious source”, “exotic star” “strange and powerful”, “remarkable” and “extremely powerful” also add to the sensation that the writer is trying to create. They are also intended to capture the attention of the audience and impress the reader. Language is a powerful tool used by journalists to persuade readers to believe what they want them to believe.

The article is obviously targeted at people who know very little about astronomy because they state some really obvious things that are usually common knowledge such as “A light-year is the distance light travels in a year” and that Earth is part of the Milky Way galaxy. (Either that or the author is just trying to fill up some space.)

Overall I found that this was a very poor article that contained very little scientific information about the discovery.

Previous Page : Planet search reveals smallest star ever

Next Page : Twin Mars rovers in instrument mix-up

Back to Contents