A recent Instagram post by The Washington Post appears to show a mundane bag of trash. The Post insinuates that NASA carelessly “flung” this “trash” into space, which later crashed into a Floridian's house. However, this portrayal not only misrepresents the event but also seems to bait readers into a misanthropic trap.
This gives us an example of how our media makes casual implications for planting little ideas in our minds, the same way a manipulative partner might casually imply they may self-harm to get their way in an argument.
Simplification
WaPo’s Instagram post presents an image that one could easily mistake for a bag of trash. The caption alongside it implies a narrative of irresponsibility on NASA’s part, insinuating that the space agency nonchalantly “flung” waste into the cosmos as if launching refuse into space were a routine part of their operations. This suggestion is far from the truth and skews the reality of NASA’s careful and strategic practices in managing space debris.
In reality, the object — a chunk of metal — was part of a controlled and deliberate process of decommissioning equipment from the International Space Station. WaPo’s actual article lays out the nuances: the piece was from a 5,800-pound collection of old nickel-hydride batteries expected to burn up upon re-entry. Contrary to the careless image conjured by the word “trash,” these were calculated actions by NASA with the anticipation that re-entry would lead to the object’s disintegration, the common result.
The Post leans on sensation in a way that potentially erodes public trust in space exploration, development, or even humanity as a whole. To do so, they bypassed actually newsworthy information, too: the remarkable fact that the debris survived re-entry. This rare occurrence speaks to the unpredictability of space exploration, not its negligence.
“Not Reading the Article”
Over the past few decades, people have been incentivized to form opinions from smaller and smaller segments of published work but conditioned to behave as if they have engaged with the full context. For a while, one was chastised for not reading “below the fold.” Later, one was ridiculed for “only reading the headlines.” But now, not from articles or even headlines, but from sensationalized snippets on social media.
The shift from “only reading the headlines” to “reacting to social posts” represents a troubling trend in the news. WaPo’s Instagram post is emblematic of this issue, allowing a pretty big misrepresentation of an event to spread without challenge.
When a sensational social media post is the entry point to a news story, many people lose sight of the nuances of the article — critical details, context, and opinions from people closer to the event.
This puts the impetus on individuals to critically assess and verify the stories they encounter before passing them on, which has allowed The Washington Post to shift the burden of truth entirely onto the reader. This act of sharing becomes a form of information laundering, where the original source's responsibility is diluted, and any resulting misinformation may mistakenly be attributed to the sharer for “not reading the article” – not being “media literate” enough.
This has sadly added a required habit of skepticism and verification before sharing information. What was once, at least to some extent, objective reporting has become unironic Clickhole posts.
On the one hand, this is the air we breathe. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder how no one sees that the air is so polluted, metaphorically speaking.
One doesn’t visit Gary, Indiana without noticing the smoke and smell.
Ideology
Instead of focusing on what one might call the “legitimate” aspects of this story (such as the legal implications, the rarity of such an event, and the responsibilities of space-faring entities), the narrative WaPo seeds is skewed toward a sensationalized claim of incompetence and negligence. This portrayal not only misrepresents the event but also promotes a nihilistic view of space exploration and humanity’s efforts on and beyond our planet.
This framing aligns with a broader ideological narrative. There is an increasing trend among the biggest players in the market to advocate for the public to have less under the guise of environmental concerns (which I critiqued in my documentary, Less Sucks: Overpopulation, Eugenics, and Degrowth).
WaPo’s framing feeds this narrative by suggesting humanity’s incompetence and negligence.
We can also find a business interest; there is some implication of the public/private dichotomy — of NASA’s incompetence and negligence — which could be used to bolster arguments for privatized space exploration. Here, the thrust might be that private companies, like Blue Origin, owned by Jeff Bezos (who also owns The Washington Post, what a coincidence) would have an incentive to handle such situations with more care and precision than government agencies.
This is an argument that capital has repeatedly used but never seems to be able to back up (in fact, the opposite is often true).
By not challenging this narrative, the media allows itself to be an instrument in the hands of those who would shift the focus from constructive criticism of how space activities are managed to a defeatist narrative. This kind of framing is particularly pernicious because it not only affects public opinion but also has potential policy implications, influencing how space activities are funded, regulated, and perceived in the broader context of international cooperation and advancement.
The Washington Post doesn’t just neglect to challenge a narrative, though; it actively frames information to direct people towards foolish viewpoints and unintentional defense of capital.
Conclusion
For all the calls of “fighting misinformation” the media has made, huge outlets like WaPo sure like to publish it.
The Washington Post’s framing of the NASA debris falling into a Floridian’s home sensationalizes the event and omits crucial details. In doing so, WaPo misleads its audience, subtly manipulates public perception toward diminished trust in human progress, and amplifies fears about our activity in space.
It reveals a concerning trend in media to prioritize engagement over accuracy, a strategy that can have profound consequences on public knowledge and, ultimately, policy. Such narratives often serve broader agendas that benefit private interests at the expense of truth. It also reminds us we must approach sensationalized news with skepticism and seek out the full context before forming opinions.
Fool me once; shame on you. Fool me repeatedly over decades… I mean the real shame is still on capital, but can we stop being fucking rubes already?
So much here! Thanks for breaking it down.
You made me see my inherent bias to disagree or dislike anything that a modern liberal agrees with. I honestly didn't want to read this at first, because I can see former friends of mine mocking internet conservatives for the NASA story underlying this article (while they themselves would not have read the actual article.)
You helped me take a step towards:
1) Inhibiting my reflexive impulse to disagree with liberals and mock them (mainly stemming from the anger and hurt of their betrayal of the commoners),
2) Remembering that I can't know what an article contains unless I read it, which showed me that ..
3) My initial reflex to not read this was maladaptive, because there is plenty in here to still side with the commoners and mock liberals.
Lololol couldn't help it, I just try to frame things in terms of how I would discuss it with my blue collar "conservative" (non-liberal) neighbors, who seem the most revolutionary-possible people around me. This article is an opportunity to correct them AND agree with them- Liberals are dumb, and they're correct to be exasperated with the constant invoking of climate change stuff, because the rich jackasses who stole our livelihoods are trying to steal even more via privatization* and the invocation of climate change.
*Somebody needs to write about the US post office mess and how it's purposely getting destroyed to strengthen the privatization narrative.
Like you said, NASA being seen as incompetent, means people will trust the private Space entities more. Whitney Webb reported that Elon just launched 2 satellites whose purpose will be to monitor carbon emissions of the global south in order to usher in a new economic model based on carbon debt. People will be more supportive of nefarious private Space entities if they think they are filling NASAs gaps in other less nefarious areas.
I also think articles critical of the government serve to lend legitimacy to legacy media. People won't pay attention to overt state-propaganda but will stay subscribed because they feel like they might miss out on more mundane articles like these that are perceived to be true because they are more "balanced".