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.
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?
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.
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.
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.