Well that sucks department

[Hawkmoon]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6125217/Giant-flames-tear-National-Museum-Rio-Janeiro.html

'Nuff said. From the photos, it would appear that basically everything that was in that museum is henceforth to be spoken of in the past tense. Water damage is likely the least of what they'll have to worry about.

And the article managed to hit one of my pet peeves:

It wasn't immediately clear how the blaze began.

Well, duh! The fire is still raging as the article is being written. Did you really expect anyone to know how it started? Even so, why toss in the "immediately"? A straightforward "The cause of the fire [blaze] is unknown." Why "immediately"?

I do not understand the media's obsession with the word "immediately." You see it most often in reports where they wanted to ask someone a question or get a statement, but they weren't able to contact the person by press time. So, do they just say they haven't yet reach [so-and-so]? NO! They say "A call to [so-and-so] was not immediately returned."

In my mind's eye, this always conjures up a vision of a dozen earnest reporters huddled around a speaker phone while one of them dials the unfortunate [so-and-so]'s number. Someone else holds a stop watch. The team waits in breathless silence as the last digit is dialed and the phone rings through the speaker. No answer. It rings. Once ... twice ... three times ... after the fifth ring the answering machine kicks in. The caller says something like "Hi, this is Sally Forth from the Daily Blab. We'd like to ask you about your version of the events that led to the deaths of all those poor [fill in the blan] last night. Please call us back at 123-456-7890 at your earliest convenience. Thanks. Bye." Sally then terminates the connection, and the person holding the stop watch clicks START. (Note that Sally says the number so fast that no human or robot could possibly catch it, and she only says it once.)

"Fifteen seconds ... thirty seconds ... 45 seconds ... ONE MINUTE! He didn't call back ... go with it. Our call was not immediately returned. *expletive deleted*ck him, say whatever you want about him."

[griz]

That is a byproduct of the shift to 24 hour news on cable and now the internet.  When the news was presented at specific times on TV, or once a day in newspapers, the emphasis was to have the best news, meaning your story was complete and accurate.  Now it's just a race to have the story first.  Accuracy? Pshaw, that can be figured out later, accuracy is a separate story.

[Ben]

That is a byproduct of the shift to 24 hour news on cable and now the internet.  When the news was presented at specific times on TV, or once a day in newspapers, the emphasis was to have the best news, meaning your story was complete and accurate.  Now it's just a race to have the story first.  Accuracy? Pshaw, that can be figured out later, accuracy is a separate story.

Also (IMO), the byproduct of that is the continued dissemination of "fake news" as it were, with little regard for correction. A decade ago we would complain that the incorrect story was on page 1, but the correction was a little blurb on page 20. Now, with Twitter as "news" we have completely false stories making the rounds with 1,000,000 views and 50,000 retweets, and the accurate correction having 10,000 views and 100 retweets.

The first story out, right or wrong, is the one everyone hears and becomes "the truth". For any false stories, you have to dig hard to find the real truth, and no one seems to care when it's presented.

I saw an interesting story the other day,  I think in The Atlantic of all places, about how Millennials and younger , while hating Trump, are agreeing with him on "fake news". They no longer take stories, whether from CNN or Fox, at face value without digging deeper. They have come to look at MSM news as "opinion", and they look to alternate news sources to confirm stories.  

[grampster]

TV reporter:  Your son was killed in that traffic accident a couple hours ago, Mrs. Smith.  How does that make you feel?  What was going through your head when the police officer came to your house and told you?

Fake news is not new.  When I was in LE 50 years ago I'd read a story in the paper about an incident that I had been directly involved in and if I hadn't been there, I wouldn't know what happened.

[Hawkmoon]

Getting back to the museum in Brazil -- as I anticipated from the photos showing the extent of the flames, the entire museum was wiped out. Early reports said that employees had managed to save 10 percent of the collection, but that seems unlikely considering that the fire broke out at 7:30 p.m. and the place was closed.

https://apnews.com/7810839883784c838189beeec7b377b9/Brazilians-see-metaphor-for-their-struggles-in-museum-fire

Looking at the new photos from above, it's clear that the place (which was originally a palace) grew incrementally, so it was really a series of connected buildings. It's difficult to understand how a fire could have spread throughout the entire structure before the fire department could at least protect wings that weren't involved yet.

From a cultural perspective, this is a disaster of epic proportions.

[Firethorn]

From a cultural perspective, this is a disaster of epic proportions.

Nothing lasts forever.  If you want to preserve history, it might actually be better to make a lot of really good replicas of stuff.  At the very least, digitize as much information as you can and distribute it. 

Then, put the real artifacts into non-flammable buildings, in non-flammable containers, etc...