[andrewheins]

This kind of thing happens often, where you've got "news", but can't disclose until it's final.

In these situations it can be helpful to use some kind of scale or domain reference.

"We've got some pretty exciting news coming up, and we think it could change the world"

vs

"We've got some pretty exciting news coming up, that should really fire up geologists"

vs

"We've got some pretty exciting news coming up, that gets us closer to understanding the history of Mars"

Set a level of expectation.

[zacharypinter]

From the article:

"This data is gonna be one for the history books. It's looking really good..."

[arrrg]

The existence of any kind of life (past or present) would be something for the history books. Only Curiosity pretty much cannot find life, only hints that life exists or existed. Maybe this is about something else, but if this is only about hints that life exists or existed, then it isn’t really something for the history books. Most people would be bored by news like that. (I personally would find it very exciting, but I’m far from typical.)

[fixedd]

SPOILER WARNING

There's life everywhere... we just haven't found it yet.

[rymith]

re: Only Curiosity pretty much cannot find life

What? A martian running in front of the camera would work. A rover not sent by earth. A little house on the... sand. Big ol skeleton of a unicorn... Seriously, you have no imagination.

[arrrg]

It cannot find any kind of life we can realistically expect to find (given past data).

You hurt me. Don’t be so mean.

[andrewheins]

I think we've all recognized the lack of context this actually provides. Something for a scientist's history books could mean jack to the general public.

[stephengillie]

"This just in -- exciting news about the Mars Rover -- more at 11"

[noselasd]

Well, if you have news, but can't talk about it, you don't have any news. So why say anything about it at all - unless you want some PR?