The Guardian newspaper has been running a series of science supplements this week:
Called the 'science course', I've noticed a couple of examples of Bad Astronomy so far (which are not repeated on the website)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/sciencecourse
In a graphic showing the planets in our solar system, the dwarf planet Eris was given the out-of-date name Xena: and an image of Eta Carinae was labelled 'The Kepler Supernova'.

Hmm; and looking at the website, I'm not very impressed with the colour of Pluto and Charon in the image from this page
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...anets.universe
Perhaps that is an image of the far future terraformed Pluto.
I'm generally quite fond of the Guardian, but it seems that (even in collaboration with the Science Museum) they can't be relied upon to get things right...

__________________
Orion's Arm . The Starlark . Voices: Future Tense . OA Flickr set

Good old Grauniad.

It's nice to see some things never change.

__________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day." - Douglas Adams

Yeah they can't get any astronomy right. They called that rising star Ken, when it fact it's called Boris.

I don't think that paper will be around much longer. To a man, all the columnists threatened to go into exile if Boris won.

__________________
2 good 2 need 4 engines

Their crossword at G2 is pretty entertaining

__________________
clear skies

If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. CARL SAGAN