Somebody might need to clean up a few Wikis:
Somebody might need to clean up a few Wikis:
So how is this incorrect? Check the bottom right corner of page 3 of the current issue. GRM has been the official magazine of NASA for a long time (as well as some other organizations, I think). Doesn't mean that NASA own them, or that they aren't objective, just that they are affiliated and NASA members get a subscription as part of their membership.
It's in a rack next to the toilet on every shuttle. Why do you think the never launch more than eight shuttle missions a year.
the NASA newsletter is also published in every issue.
I'm kind of disappointed that this isn't about astronauts bench racing against the Russians.
Huge win for us NASA fans. Membership in a great club without having to pay extra for GRM. Or, you can look at it as buying a GRM subscription and getting a club membership for free.
Now if SCCA would reduce the cost of membership and dump their mediocre magazine, maybe I'd belong to both.
svrex.. it's not the space guys.. its the NASA racing guys
I'm aware of the National Auto Sport Association.
But is it correct to say that GRM is "the official publication of the NASA"? It's not published by NASA, right? It is published by Motorsport Marketing.
It might make more sense for it to say it is "endorsed" by NASA, or "sponsored", or whatever.
It's not published by NASA. Is it?
This wording left my wife, currently writing an article on the Challenge (and who knows very little about GRM) to state that GRM was "published 8 times per year by NASA". If the Wiki is correct, then my wife's article was correct.
Just trying to keep things straight.
The official publication of NASA means NASA chose GRM as it's official paper media.
Hanes is the official stocking supplier for John Brown. John Brown does not make Hanes, but rather uses them exclusively when protecting his feet from his shoes.
I get it- just pointing out how easy it is for people unfamiliar with the details to read it wrong.
I came into this thread expecting it to be about GRM'ers drinking together after NASA events.
I need more coffee.
I work at NASA. I have copies of the magazine there.
JB:
Your example doesn't quite work. NASA is an advocacy group (of motorsports). It therefore stands to reason that they would have a publication advocating something.
So, if we here "Mountain Dew is the official soft drink of the International Olympic Committee", we understand that the IOC doesn't make soda. But if we heard, " Olympian Today is the official publication of the IOC", it would be reasonable to assume they published it.
It isn't that important, but I'd care if my name was Suddard. As written, a journalist who is unfamiliar with the details was easily able to misinterpret it, and therefore misrepresent it..
Just trying to help.
Gimp wrote: I work at NASA. I have copies of the magazine there.
Boomtown! NASA reads GRM...
SVreX wrote: It isn't that important, but I'd care if my name was Suddard. As written, a journalist who is unfamiliar with the details was easily able to misinterpret it, and therefore misrepresent it..
It's quite possible that people with the surname Suddard don't have a problem. I just opened up the closest copy of GRM and on the bottom of the index is a box that contains the following text:
Grassroots Motorsports is the official magazine of the National Auto Sport Association
There's also a section called "NASA SpeedNews" near the back that says "Official Publication of the National Auto Sport Association" in big letters.
No offense, but a light skimming of a Wiki by a journalist who misunderstands the subject isn't really a good guide as to the quality of the information. Perhaps the journalist in question should run the unpublished article past a subject matter expert to check for errors - and it sounds as if she did.
Am I now a subject matter expert?? 
I don't have a problem with the wording as it currently appears. It is concise, correct, and any journalist should know not to assume that "official product of" is the same as "is operated by." For that matter, experienced journalists have been burned enough to never assume ANYthing but the exact meaning of the words used, nothing more.
Margie
"GRM official pub of NASA"...
That makes me think about sitting down to have a pint with a bunch of guys in spacesuits after a track day. That would be awesome.
LOL Salanis!
Thanks Margie.
I thouhgt pints too.
GRM is the official pub of my house, it just doesn't say it in the magazine.
Carson wrote: I thouhgt pints too. GRM is the official pub of my house, it just doesn't say it in the magazine.
GRM is apparently NOT the offical pub of A.A.
Dr. Michael Griffin, the director of (rocket-ship) NASA came to our school to speak at a conference on engineering.
Afterwards, he gave me (and others) an offical NASA sticker (plus other tchotchke).
I stuck his NASA sticker (see below) in the back window of my ~Escort GT~ NASA PTF race car.
That's all I got........
SVreX wrote: As written, a journalist who is unfamiliar with the details was easily able to misinterpret it, and therefore misrepresent it..
A challenge article makes someone a journalist?
Molehill meet mountain.
You'll need to log in to post.
