As an amateur astronomer, I believe that planetariums and observatories have their place and that there is normally no cause for conflict, though my club, Amateur Astronomers, Inc., had a rather heated debate many years ago (long before my time) about whether or not they should have a planetarium and an observatory. However, I imagine that the issue had more to do with limited space, resources, and funding than with anything concerning philosophy.
However, the lamestream media (while I would like to take credit for coming up with that term to describe the mainstream media, it was actually coined by the writer(s) over at the Anomalist website) seems to believe there is some sort of competition and they take sides (so much for journalistic objectivity). Consider the following example:
Back on August 8th, the weekend section of the local Gannett newspaper had a piece that was billed as being about planetariums and observatories. Said piece was on the two central pages of the section and consisted of one large article about a planetarium, along with some photos. The remaining space was taken up with a listing of planetariums in the state (reasonably complete) and there was a very tiny section which had a rather incomplete listing of observatories (while my club’s main observatory was mentioned, the vast United Astronomy Clubs of NJ – UACNJ – complex of observatories at Jenny Jump State Park was not mentioned at all.
One might be tempted to consider this bias merely an isolated example. But there was an article in the local Greater Media paper a few years ago where a columnist was talking about an interest in the night sky and thought the best way to satisfy it was visiting a planetarium. No mention of astronomy clubs or their observatories whatsoever. In the words of Ian Fleming (creator of James Bond): “Once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action”. Based on the articles I read, we are well into the coincidence stage, but I suspect this phenomenon may be a bit more widespread.
What could cause this bias? Perhaps reporters are intimidated by amateur astronomers, their clubs, and observatories. Or do they feel that actually going to an observatory, listening to a lecture, and actually walking up to a telescope to use their own eyes to see something is way too much effort for them and their readership? Could it be that they are so accustomed to watching movies that the only way they might find space interesting is if it is presented like a movie with special effects? Which of these do you think is accurate? Or do you have a theory of your own?