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.

[–] burningmatches 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Reuters is a news wire — ie, newspapers pay to “copy” its stories. It’s not lazy. It’s why Reuters exists.

[–] CordanWraith@aussie.zone 2 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] zephyreks@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.