The study's problem was whether five major newspapers that covered Viking produced informative, educational, interpretive, and credible stories. Indexed, microfilmed articles from January, 1975, to November, 1976, were analyzed. Conclusions: no newspaper gave the landings the greatest percentage of coverage; every newspaper devoted the largest percentage of coverage to interpretation; science writers used analogy most often; adequate explanations of Viking's implications were not found; four of five newspapers had more references to named than unnamed sources; only two newspapers utilized their staffs more than outside sources. Recommendations: covering a science event should be planned to include preliminary coverage, follow-up, and analysis; writers must interpret the facts, use educational writing techniques, explain implications, and have specific attribution; newspapers should assess their capabilities for science coverage.