| The
most massive star vs Limit to star size
Sky&Telescope.com, 10th March 2005 and
The Australian, 11th March 2005
This week I
thought I might do something different. I found two different
articles from two different sources on the same topic
published within a day of each other and thought that
it might be interesting to do a comparison of them.
The first article
is from an astronomy magazine and so naturally is longer
and more detailed. These types of articles are usually
pitched at professional astronomers and people with an
interest or background in astronomy. The second article
is from a well-known daily newspaper and is targeted at
a different audience – the everyday Australian. Due to
this the information and language used in the newspaper
article cannot be as complicated as that used in the astronomy
magazine.
The most noticable
difference between these articles is the size. The magazine
article is over a page long (over 500 words) whereas the
newspaper article is less than half the size (approximately
180 words). Another obvious difference is that the magazine
article has 2 pictures relevant to the article whereas
the newspaper article has none.
Despite these
differences the articles are surprisingly consistent in
the information they present.
• Both say
that the Hubble space telescope was used to study the
Arches cluster
• Both say that the Arches cluster is located about 25,000
light years away near the galaxy’s centre and is about
2 million years old (quite young).
• Both say that it is the densest (richest) star cluster
in earth’s galaxy.
• Both say no stars were found over 150 solar masses (magazine
says none over 130sm)
• Both conclude that stars do not exceed 150 solar masses.
• Both say at the end of the article that previous theories
predicted much bigger stars (though the magazine says
up to 500sm and the newspaper says anywhere between 100-1000sm)
Both articles
have included quotes from ‘authority figures’ but use
different ones. (Could this be because once interviewed
they are not allowed to talk to another source?) It is
interesting to note that the newspaper has included direct
quotes from the astronomer who published the research,
Figer, but the magazine only refers to him (it actually
appears to slam him a little bit as if they disapprove
of his methods or something – maybe they are just cranky
that they didn’t get a quote).
I found that
although it is much longer the only significant information
that the magazine presented that the newspaper did not
was that the result is consistent with other studies and
that there is another star – the Pistol Star that may
be larger than the 150sm limit, thought there is no conclusive
evidence yet.
Overall I found
that the take-home message of both article was exactly
the same. I think that the newspaper presents the information
in a much more concise fashion whereas the magazine tends
to waffle on a bit (probably because they have the space
to). So if you just want the facts or don’t have a lot
of time my recommendation is to go for the newspaper.
Previous Page : Saturn
Lights
Next Page : Bright ideas face test
in cold light on Saturn's moon
Back
to Contents
|
