Slashdot Mirror
Can Science Journalism Be Entertaining and Responsible?
GRW writes "This past week, I attended a panel discussion sponsored by the Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, entitled "Can science journalism be entertaining and responsible?". This was a discussion regarding the role the media could and should play in the dissemination of scientific issues to the general public. Panelists included newspaper, TV and radio journalists. I thought that this might be a good subject for a Slashdot discussion. What do you think about science journalism? How can it better communicate to the general public about science and the scientific method? Can science journalism do a better job of helping people distinguish science from pseudoscience?"
if it sold papers.
Such is the infinite Grace of Popeye.
Um
The world really needs a few more Carl Sagans. Ever since his passing, there's really no one willing to responsibly "popularize" science.
Of course it will always be nearly impossible to find a balanced and unbiased news source, but when it comes to science and tecnology it seems like the major news outlets only like to report on the latest gadgets and anything that will "make life easier". I tent to surf the internet to find my latest science news and reports. I find it easier to visit the sites of those actually doing the scietific studies/experiments. It is easier to get the full story that way.
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
Of course it can do a better job. Just look at the front section of Science magazine for an example of responsible, generally accurate, scientific jounalism. But it is not easy to find people who both have a broad understanding of science and who can write. It requires a real reporter, in other words, not somebody whose primary skills lie in rearranging the words in press releases.
If scientific journalism is going to be entertaining and responsible, it needs to be meaningfully educational. When I read a story on Slashdot, I frequently don't know a great deal about the subject matter (this is, in fact, why I read Slashdot). So as I read the linked-to article, I'll frequently come across concepts that are new to me. I then go on Google and find out what they're all about. Frequently, it takes quite a bit of reading to learn enough to understand what the article is actually getting at.
Let's have more of this. In printed media, it is very difficult to write about science in a way that really presents the data properly while being open to the lay-person, but some attempt should be made to explain the details so that the article can be widely understood while at the same time being truly informative. In online media, on the other hand, there's no reason the basic article shouldn't have hypertext on every other word, linking to other articles on the same subject, so that a person can actually educate themselves enough to understand the article properly.
I'm a geek, and so I may be a little off track, but almost everyone liked Sesame Street, and almost everyone liked Mr. Rogers. We're learning creatures, and I think if you give a person the ability to use scientific literature to do a little creative learning, that all by itself will be entertaining.
~SL
Oh please, stop with the whining. That's ALWAYS been entertainment. Ever read some Moliere? Classical Greek comedies? Same subjects all the time...
Dude, wake up.
Slashdot always posts the latest crackpot soon-to-be-disproved "discoveries" and leaping to conclusions. "Possible signs of life detected on Venus" my ass. That's called wishful thinking and leaping to conclusions with only a shred of inconclusive "evidence".
Repeal the DMCA!
Between science and pseudo-science is that real science has a bad habit of telling people what they don't want to hear. Pseudo-science has no conscience. And since most people only want good news... well I don't think this is easily resolved.
What is music when you despise all sound?
A journalists job is to digest complex facts and regurgitate them so that their lay audience can comprehend them. Pure science is full of complex symbols and formulas that only specialists with years of training can understand. Journalese, which is just plain spoken word, is not equipped to handle the fine symbolic details of science. Therefore, it can only provide loose approximations of theory.
So a journalist can write: the planets revolve around the sun in elliptical orbits with slight deviations due to...blah blah blah. Sure that's responsible journalism. And it's very useful to those of us who don't want to research calculus to get a lay person's understanding of the path planets take around the sun. However, it doesn't come close to the accuracy of the mathematical formulas that describe the path of the planets. But who the hell is going to want to read and study a bunch of formulas while reading the New York Times Science section? Not me. The journalist must sacrifice accuracy for readability/entertainment reasons.
But there is nothing irresponsible at all about making rough approximations to help keep an article light and entertaining. I mean, can you really consider it irresonsible to not be as accurate as you can possibly be? Consider that all of our knowledge comes from rough approximations delivered to us by our senses and equipment. Since they are only approximations, does it mean we must throw out all that we know? Is all of science, then, irresponsible because its measuring devices have tolerances?
<a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>
Here in the United States we do not place enough emphasis on science and mathematics in our public schools. It is considered socially unacceptable to excel in these fields for many people and only some school systems are willing to support the programs to develop the skills of thes eindividuals at this level. With religious fundamentalists clammoring about how one scientific doctrine or another interferes with their right to bring up their own children, the schools are scared to teach anything that could be disputed (Evolution is the glaring example, there are several others). Scientific journalism for the masses isn't scientific most of the time, especially because it is designed for people with a 6th grade reading level. Technical scientific journals are often difficult to access because most are very expensive (props to the Proceeding of the National Academy of Science, one of the best on the planet, for being absolutely free) or hard to find. I hold a seasonal research job when not in medical school, and it has proven very difficult to get ahold of many journals that would help my (boss's) research. We need to either set up an easily accessible system of free journals for the masses, educate the general populace about science in a much more thorough manner, or both before asking the journalists to take some care in the issue. Remember, most of these media outlets (scientific or otherwise) will publish only what they find interesting and what they know will sell instead of what may be most valuable. The apathy of the general populace in the United States towards science, as well as their dismally low general education level, should thus be treated before making any moves towards a grass-roots movement like this. After all, breaking down nuclear physics (like string theory) or techniques of treating cancer (like inhibiting angiogenesis) loses something in the translation when forced to use 6th-grade terminology.
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
>Stroke = blockage of blood vessel in brain, kills of brain tissue, causes various bad things from blindness to death >Vampire bat blood = anticoagulant, dissolves blood clot, blood gets to brain tissue, problem resolved >If you want a crackpot story, look for the article in Pubmed (link below) dealing with the use of PCP derivatives to cure strokes, the protein should be called MK801 >http://www4.nlm.ncbi.nlm.gov
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Why should Journalism be entertaining? People like entertainment. I belive it when Fox News says they're number 1. Fox News is pretty entertaining. But are they good journalists? When I was O'Reilly spout off on hippies and California and anybody who opposes war in Iraq, I get a good chuckle. But I certainly don't learn much about what it really going on in the world.
Entertaining journalism may appeal to a wide audience, but obviously at the cost of some journalistic integrity. It's obvious that networks such as Fox News are far more concerned with ratings than with reporting what's truely significant. I don't mean to be cold hearted but one mexican girl gets a botched transplant and it makes headlines. What about the other million people that died that day? The editors decided those stories weren't as popular.
Real journalism is about reporting information in an efficient manner. We can evaluate journalism by the signal to noise ratio. In my hometown newspaper, which is roughly 75% ads, there is really only 25% left for real news. And most of that is filled up with crap.
I guess I really try to draw a line between work and play. Reading the paper, watching the news, that's work. That isn't supposed to be entertaining. I might enjoy it, but that doesn't make it play. I enjoy it BECAUSE I'm aquireing information. If the information is diluted to male it more "entertaining", my enjoyment is lessened. Play is playing CS or watching Cowboy Bebop. That's what entertainment should be.
Perhaps there is space for entertaining journalism. I do enjoy the political comics, sometimes, and Doonsbury. And like I said I do get a kick out of O'Reilly. But that stuff is the desert, not the healthy meal. Don't forget that.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
These publications are great, but they're preaching to the converted.
I think the biggest problem is that education tends to emphasize rote memorization, which stunts students' critical thinking skills. If you make it all an exercise in regurgitation, then everything becomes an appeal to authority. Well, who's to say that your high school chemistry teacher is more of an authority that the person who writes the feng shui column in the LA Times? Hey, the feng shui columnist makes more money, so isn't he probably smarter than your chem teacher, who drives an '89 Celebrity?
Another problem is that science educators don't always know as much about this kind of stuff as they should. Physics teachers should know that Newton did alchemy, but they should also know that he did not, as the urban folktale would have you believe, practice astrology. They should know that acupuncture works, but they should also know that it works just as well if you ignore the complicated charts and just insert a needle in a random place. They should know the difference between "intelligent design" creationism and the "young-earth" version, so they can be prepared to refute creationist arguments.
Find free books.
No they can't or more precicely they won't. Look at the level of intelligence required to read the daily newspapers across America. It requires just an elementary school reading level to read the average newspaper. The letters to the editor are far more intellectual than anything the editors can produce and they only choose to print the ones that the editors can read themselves. It is pathetic. They can't even get the facts straight on simple stories, let alone something that they have no conceptual grasp of.
They print crap that they haven't bothered to research and verify the facts of and yet it is something so trivial to verify. I would much rather that the general media didn't touch the scientific stories as they can't even get "human interest" or book reviews correct. Ever read any of the books the New York lists in their Notable Books list? Didn't think so as nobody else did either.
My name fits again.
I see a lot of science articles from The New York Times, especially linked to on slashdot, but when I read the articles I generally think they are awful. The reason is that reading them gives you no substantive understanding of the science that is going on. They often seem to choose subjects like string theory or loop quantum gravity, which are extremely complex, and then try to explain them at an elementary school science level. This is simply a futile endevor and they end up saying basically nothing. I am working on my Ph.D. in theoretical physics and even I can't often tell from the article what the theory claims, and often I know of several theories they might be talking about and am not even sure which one it is because the coverage is so vague. I can't see how anyone could read these and getting anything of use from them. Frankly I don't know how you could explain string theory to someone at such a basic level, even in an entire book, much less a news paper article. Especially when even many physicists (myself included) don't know that much about it.
I think they should really focus on science they can explain, and make sure to explain how these things are based in fact and come from experimental evidence. This is the basis of the difference between science and pseudoscience. Bob Park, a frequent crusader against pseudoscience, hypothesises that these insubstantial, vague accounts of outlandish modern physics that are often given to laymen make science sound basically indistinguishable from pseudoscience, and thus help bolster beleif in pseudoscience. I'm not sure I beleive this, but I do think it's a possibility. A good example is an author I heard interviewed who wrote a book about how ESP could be based on quantum entanglement. This is an absurd claim if you know anything about entanglement and quantum decoherence, but does sound sort of reasonable if you just take some very vague notions about quantum mechanics (namely, it's hell-a-weird).
Does good science make interesting journalism? Well, I think a lot of it can if it's well told, because science is fundementally a mystery story, and most people like mysteries. Just look at the success of CSI. I think we must stick to work that has widely acknoledged validity, though, and to work which is experimentally grounded. We must also get through that when you read "A Breif History of Time" you are not getting the whole picture. Gernally, being ignorant of something is far less hazzardous when you're aware of your ignorance.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
The problem with real science reporting is that it runs the risk of offending advertisers, or even potential advertisers. That's why we'll never hear the real truth about diets and health, auto safety, the federal budget, the cost of war with Iraq, the real costs of insurance, or whether Prozac causes people to flip out occasionally. In the interest of "balanced reporting," every truth must always be presented with some vested interest's counter-truth. This leads people to believe that no one really knows, and cannot really know -- so it's OK to just follow one's emotions, which is what advertising is all about. Ultimately, media's customers are not the audience but advertisers, so that's who they pander to.
As someone who has from time to time been the victim scientist in the company press release its awful. people assume you were bragging or dont know dick about your own work, because some reporter shaped your words. If you make a simple analogy to say base ball, you can bet your whole research program will become a giant metafor beginining with you hitting one out of the park.
its embarassing and gives people the wrong impression of you. plus every dorkl in the world then writes you an e-mail to say how you got something wrong.
The part I dread the most is that they often send you an advance copy to correct. And its always unsalvagable. you correct as much as you can but by construction you cant real change the gross distortions.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
...and I can tell you that while it's astonishingly easy to think of fascinating ideas for science films, it's damned tough to think up a format that is fresh, emotionally engaging, and revelatory. Everytime I go the bookstore or the library and wander around for a few hours, I leave with my head swimming with ideas that make me feel passionate and excited, ideas that make me want to run up to strangers and say "Jeezus this world is mad cool." Yet, in the course of a year, if I can turn six of these ideas into show treatments, and three of those into shows, I am beating the game.
The reality is, it simply doesn't matter how "good" a show is if no one watches it. In fact, an otherwise high-quality show that fails to be interesting to millions of people can poison the well for other shows down the line. Discovery, PBS, National Geographic, take your pick; they're all in a perpetual scramble for eyeballs. No one at any of these places has yet figured out a fail-safe algorithm for finding and producing shows that people will watch without clicking through to the next channel. All they know is that the most-watched shows hook viewers emotionally. If they don't see the potential for that in your proposal, it ends up in the circular file.
I don't lament this. We live in an economically free, market-driven society. Ideas and stories, like other products, compete among each other for our money and (especially in television) our time. A lot of the comments I read above implied that if we as a society could only impose, from the top down, a grand realignment of the values we place on science and knowledge, our science journalism would become both smarter and more mainstream. Fine, as long as we're at it, let's also impose from the top down a hunger for good government, spiritual advancement, and healthy living. All admirable goals, but unfortunately, utopias are far easier to applaud than they are to implement. Kind of like software development schedule utopias. (*cough, cough*)
So back here on planet Earth, pragmatists chip away at problems from the bottom up. Successful science shows and journalism seek to tap the emotions of viewers, knowing that if you win their hearts, their minds follow. To that end, these are the goals of a good science journalist: to not only inform, but reveal; to not only show how things work, but to incite strong feelings that this knowledge is important and sometimes even miraculous; to make clear that this world of disconnected parts is actually connected beneath the surface by beautiful and unifying principles; to show that if you understand why a whip cracks you also understand why an F15 booms and a nuclear reactor glows in blue Cherenkov light under water. And just as importantly, to also make science seem as much a natural and exciting part of life as getting laid, carving on a snowboard, fighting with your brother, and watching Shawshank Redemption for the third time. Connection.
I did a show and a website on El Nino for NOVA a few years back. (Yes, it told a human story as well as a scientific story.) It was re-broadcast in Germany last year, and four million people watched it. I sit here at my desk sometimes and think about that kind of thing, and I have never gotten used to it. I read, I think, I drink coffee, and then I type while I play mp3s. In other words, I'm pretty much like the rest of the crowd here on Slashdot. Yet sometimes, the ideas embodied in those keystrokes end up being injected into four million skulls. Trust me, the responsibility you feel to use that privilege wisely and effectively is enormous. Maybe that's what evangelical Christians feel when they hear the "good news" and want to spread it.
It's knee-jerk easy to say we need less Joe Millionaire and Britney, and more NOVA and JYW. However, this ignores the reality that we are complex social primates driven far more by emotion than Western science has traditionally admitted. Even a solitary, consuming interest in science is ultimately an emotional urge. Are you hankering to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, uncover the faint traces of Pluto somewhere among fifty thousand starfield photographs, or invent a way of copying fragments of DNA? Andrew Wiles, Clyde Tombaugh, and Kary Mullis each threw themselves into science not because they were excited by university labs, jargon, and academic papers, but because they fell in love with their ideas, pined and trembled for them, stayed up late and got up early in hopes of seeing if they could use them to recast the way we see the world. The rest of it is just window dressing.
Unfortunately, many people were inoculated against science in school the way they were inoculated against Shakespeare. After something's been forced down your throat like cod liver oil, you lose your taste for it. (I still remember my old physics teacher's dandruff, droning voice, and drudgerous lab assignments.)
There is an antidote. I said it earlier, but it bears repeating. If you win their hearts, their minds will follow. The best science shows are the ones that make viewers feel caught up, and emotionally invested in, the underlying science story. If you're a good writer, you find a way to do this naturally, from the bottom up. It turns out that Aristotle's dramatic principles apply to science stories like any other flavor of story. The shitty shows I've seen (and they are legion) try to fake it. You can tell when the people who made them did it for money, not love. Ultimately, in this business, you either love what you're writing about...or you're a hack.
So the question was, "Can science journalism be entertaining and responsible?" In other words, can science journalism thrill your heart as well as your head? Kinda like asking if your girlfriend can be both entertaining and responsible, can give your, ummm, heart a shiver as well as your mind. If she can't...better change the channel.
Then you probably still read Hugo Gernsback's scientifiction magazine ?
Really, it is possible to write good science fiction without even mentioning science. If science fiction were really only about scientific things, we would soon have read all those stories.
For the most part, science fiction is still about what if, and then using good logic to control the story line.
It is not as if hyperspace has been discovered, or instant transportation is reality, or faster than light travel is possible, or that there is life on Venus or Mars.
For the most part, most science-fiction books are much more accurate than science-fiction television series or science-fiction movies.