The information that came out in this article is not news. There has been significant discussions about not only the improved performance of the engines, but customers debating whether or not they wanted to be the first to fly on those upgraded engines.
Meanwhile the helium leak problem & reshuffling of schedule is an actual bit of news. We have known about the helium leaks before, but this is the first time it got so bad they had to so dramatically change the launch schedule. If it is a fundamental problem (which is sure seems to be), it might put this years launch schedule in some jeopardy.
I don't know if I agree that either of these items is "news" in the "there was no other way to find out about it" sense, but if you take the classical definition of "news" is something reported by a "reporter" (or journalist) then by reporting something it becomes "news" by definition.
I realize that is sort of semantic hand waving but when you assert something it "not news" you are, in the framework of that definition, making a false-by-definition statement asserted as truth. That irritates me unreasonably.
That said, in terms of impact to the schedule and expectedness the helium leak is no unexpected. So it isn't really "news" by your definition either. The whole point of doing these preflight tests is to ferret out these issues, and by their nature a minimum weight helium tank is a tricky thing to both manufacture and install. You need only search for the phrase "SpaceX Helium Leak" on your favorite search engine and you will find this not an uncommon issue which delays launches.
As SpaceX seems to be fairly familiar with the problem, and they have fixed leaky tanks a number of times, it seems to me that it is close to, if it hasn't already, entered into the operational readyness plan, where there might be "Step 1. Find the helium leak we know is out there. Step 2. Apply the appropiate fix prior to launch." So I don't really see how you could support the claim that this is a threat to the launch schedule.
Pretty sure you must be the only person in the world to think like this. News is generally considered to be objective, factual etc. A journalist reporting on an event but who was paid by a company or working off a PR media release is generally not considered news. I am not saying that this is an example either way just that your definition is pretty odd.
Ok, interesting digression. I'm trying to parse your argument, where you claim:
> A journalist reporting on an event but who was paid by
> a company or working off a PR media release is
> generally not considered news.
So there are a lot of unhooked elements in this claim. Does it change if "a company" is a traditional media company (say News Corp) or a blog like Spaceflight Now? And is a "PR media release" the same thing as a "press release" (that would be a bunch of stuff a company announces and puts on a variety of distribution sources (like PR Newswire)? Does it change is the human was present and listening to the talk, or if they weren't present and not listening to talk given?
Let me put that in a different context, if Obama gives a speech, and releases the speech to the media ahead of time, and a "news outlet" prints, or shows, or somehow makes available a "story" which is consumed by a reader or a viewer or a listener, was that not "news" that they heard? What would they call it? When you listen to the program on the radio they call that segment a "news update" what do you call it?
Do reporters have agendas? Sure they are reporters. Does the same "news" sound different coming from CNN and Fox and ABC ? Yes. And while we can all indict the media for being dupes, I expect stories that unless stories are paid placement (and neither example in this thread appears to have been a paid placement) are considered to be "news stories" by most people. Perhaps biased news based on the biases of the news organization but news none the less.
Meanwhile the helium leak problem & reshuffling of schedule is an actual bit of news. We have known about the helium leaks before, but this is the first time it got so bad they had to so dramatically change the launch schedule. If it is a fundamental problem (which is sure seems to be), it might put this years launch schedule in some jeopardy.