Slashdot Mirror
Choose the New PBS Science Show
chinmay7 writes "PBS has posted three different pilots for a new science show, and they want viewers to weigh in and help choose one as the regular science feature. All three pilots are viewable as vodcasts. Wired Science aired on January 3rd. The pilot certainly is polished, as one might expect from Wired Magazine, and deals with interesting topics: 'Meet rocket-belt inventors, stem cell explorers and meteorite hunters.' Science Investigators (air date: January 10) seems to be the most 'science' show: 'The investigators examine 30,000-year-old Neanderthal DNA, vanishing frogs, mind-boggling baseball pitches and more.' 22nd Century (air date: January 17) is pretty gimmicky and loud for my taste, but delivers interesting content — 'In the coming decades will all our brains be wired together like networked computers?' So watch and vote."
Since this is a three-way vote, will they, given the scientific setting, also be sophisticated enough to allow people to rank them and determine the result by a Condorcet method?
All of these programs utilize the newsmagazine format, with three or four 15 - 20 minute minidocumentaries per program. Unfortunately, this is not enough time to delve into a subject indepth. Hell, an hour isn't enough time either. Nova is falling into the same trap, with their ScienceNOW programming. Is Nature and Frontline the last bastion of serious documentary programming on PBS?
is it too much to have hosts that are not 30 something smart asses? or better yet, science stories that are not ubiquitous in the media already. or even better, shows dedicated to one topic rather than 4 or 5 so we can get some real information involved? or at best. . just redirect the funding to NOVA.
For the browser-plugin challenged:
e neral/windows/22ndcentury/22ndcentury_384.wmv
/.'s formatting "system")
22nd Century
mplayer mms://wm.z1.mii-streaming.net/media/pbs/windows/g
(you'll have to remove a gap as entered by
While I'm watching that, anyone else feel like digging through the source for the others?
My poetry site welcomes the unusual.
. .
How are these shows substantially different or improved from Nova ScienceNOW and Scientific American Frontiers? (Speaking of which, having Alan Alda as the host of that show made it palatable for some older people who wouldn't otherwise look at science stories.)
If they really want a new show, they need a resurrection of Newton's Apple, and target younger audiences. For that matter, they should resurrect 3-2-1 Contact, too. If they need to find a free slot, they could get rid of Cyberchase, one of the lamest shows pretending to be educational I've seen, besides some emo girl clown sitting on a couch.
I am tired of all the "science" shows out there that are more flash and gimmick then cold-facts.
ie.
Naked Science
Nova Now
MythBusters
EVERYTHING on Discovery & TLC
I yearn for impartial & unbiased educational programming that I enjoyed in my youth. Now-a-days it seems that if they don't "wow" you in the first 10 seconds they think they have failed.
An excellent example is Nature shows.
Old goodness:
Lorne Greens New Wilderness, Nature, Undersea Adventures of Jacques Cousteau *, Profiles of Nature.
New Badness:
Croc Hunter**, Fox Special "Worlds most Amazing/Dangerous Animals", etc.
* Jacques Cousteau was Very preachy but (a) it was needed at that time, and (b) it was the first of it's kind.
** I loved how passionate Steve Irwin was about animals, and the first Season of Croc Hunter was awesome. But IMHO I think the show got too much attention and turned into a Jerry Springer of Nature shows and lost it's credibility.
I do not have the attention span of a flea on crack. Take your time and explain the science behind what you are trying to show. I donate to PBS, but only on the 'heavy-science' shows. Alas it seems they don't get the message.
"The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
You sir take that back! I've only seen every episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus twice...TWICE! That is unacceptible! Unexpectidly unacceptible. As unexpected as...
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
I watched all of "22nd Century" and "Wired Science", and the first half of "Science Investigators". I thought "22nd Century" had interesting topics, but the "hosts" were utterly condescending, biased and overtly scripted, almost to the point of being insulting. I liked the topics in "Science Investigators" too, but the "this is like, way cool, man" approach of the first male host made me gag, so I turned it off after about 15-20 minutes. "Wired Science" was the best for me. I guess the other two shows would have broader appeal to a younger set of viewers than me (40 yrs and one day), but they can vote on their own... :-)
Why not just make more original episodes of Nova, dangit!
OTOH, there's tons of coverage of natural science, physics, applied science and anthropology, but in general not many shows on IT; this is remarkable considering how unlikely it is for the average person to see the Tevatron, but that person probably deals with computer viruses, data encryption and slow internets on a daily basis. There should be a Secret Life of Machines for computers. You could have:
And so on. I don't think Hunkin would do it, so we'd have to find someone suitably cheeky but computer-friendly and having an artistic streak. Maybe Woz.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Will future episodes also be available online? Surely they realize that they will get FAR more votes than regular viewers. It would be awesome if they did post them online all the time though. That aside, though, I have to say I agree with earlier posters: I'd just as soon see the funding go to Nova and maybe Nature.
Unpleasantries.
Vodcasts? Seriously?
Is it really so incredibly unhip to just say "video files"?
Do we really have a moral imperative to create as many buzzwords as possible?
Because investing in state owned reruns certainly costs as much as funding 2 additional new shows.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Michio Kaku should have his own show on PBS.
FairTax baby!
'Software EXchange and Viruses, the Inside Story'?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
We all had a chance to put our votes for the best science show in the sidebar just a few weeks ago ;-)
I want them to bring back Bill Nye!
...or they could just import Daily Planet from Discovery Canada. It's been around for over a decade (with one rename), it's not Canada-centric, and it's actually *daily* (shock).
(But Americans don't like watching shows with funny accents...)
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
Just send the cash to the BBC, RDF and the like in the UK.
What about the old "In Search Of..." series? I used to love that show when I was a young and impressionable kid. My vote would be to bring that back.
I watched Wired Science for about 8 minutes before getting so uninterested I changed channels and forgot all about it. Yet another unremarkable show. Let's hope the others are more interesting.
Better yet, turn the TV off, and read something like Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science", Dawkins "The God Delusion" or even something off the wall like McCutcheon's "The Final Theory", which will make you at least re-think what you know, though in the end you'll probably come to the same conclusion I did, which is, he's a crackpot. But a really clever one, especially if you read the whole book! :)
PBS... well, it isn't going to teach you any significant amount of science. It's 99.9% a complete waste of time, just like all the other pre-digested gee-whiz shows. If you want entertainment, by all means, head for the TV. But don't kid yourself that a TV show split over multiple subjects is going to be illuminating. It's just drool-fodder.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Future episodes will cover:
"Nobody expects the White House Inquisition!"
'Course they got to get a new cast though because Anthony Michael Hall's too old and Kelly LeBrock hit the wall.
In the Wired Science pilot, starting at 22m 45s, we are treated to an attractive show host that cuts through a large flat panel screen with a circular saw. That gets my vote.
Slashdot's first reaction to VMware
Why Beakman's World isn't the fourth option?
"The Miracle of Life," released in 1983, is probably the most loved Nova program of all time & garnered both an Emmy and a Peabody.
But another broadcast to win both these awards, "The Elegant Universe," is also an excellent (and hardly dumbed down) program released in 2003.
I don't like the Nova: Science Now format, but NOVA is still making fine programs.
I'm sure this has been said already, but why not just reinvest all that funding into Nova? It has truely been one of the best science shows on PBS today.
*pSig = NULL;
Web downloads are a good idea -- except for the disabled like me. They're not captioned. So I'm stuck waiting for the broadcasts on television since they will be captioned there.
I expected better from PBS. They try so hard to adopt new technologies, but they choose to leave the disabled behind when it wasn't necessary.
(They also don't do DVS on a lot of shows either).
i am a soviet space shuttle
Attention PBS: I will vote for any show as long as you get Bill Nye to host it.
That is all.
Considering just how many differing opinions and conflicts appear on the internet each day alone, you can just imagine the chaos that would cause trying to coordinate that mess within a hive mind situation. Unless a setup like this is extremely low-level hardware communicating each neuron independently of the individual's personality and mindset, I doubt it could be used efficiently. (Let alone safely.)
Obviously, the stuff we learn during life has to be stored somewhere within the brain. If a system like this can do something as creepy as accessing specific neurons/neuron sets as easily as computers can access various memory registers, and then insert, copy or remove information from those areas in addition to basic data processing, the potential risks would be to dangerous to use on the human body.
Risks could range anywhere between identity theft, to brain piracy to coma/death from brain viruses or "crashing" the brain itself by accidentally altering the neurons the wrong way.
As cool as a hive mind type setup might seem, I think I'll keep the networked hardware outside of my body. No reason we can't be satisfied augmented reality and passive, non-invasive communication with the brain, alone.
That aside though, implantable, non-networked hardware could have some nice benefits. For example, imagine if you could have math-coprocessor to perform the heavy lifting of calulating large, complicated number sets, while leaving the rest of your mind free to use the results in some innovative, creative way. Or, how about a form of long term data storage that's far more reliable than your brain, and can record data from your various senses about a particular event in an entirely objective manner... rather than being altered by your flawed "perception" of that event?
At any rate, we may eventually start altering our brains through external means in the near future, but the brainnetworking stuff would just be too much.
8==8 Bones 8==8
We do not live in the 21st century. We live in the 20 second century.
Just a random observation in the Science Investigators episode; about 2/3rds through the episode I see some desktop apps w/RedHat's blue curve theme. It could be Gnome but I'm not sure (as that theme has been 'ported' all over the place).
Why oh why didn't they deinterlace the videos before posting them online?
I haven't yet finished downloading and watching the pilots, but the Science Investigators weighs in at 508 MB! That loses a few points on my scale...
One of E O Wilson's recent books, Consilience, is in a similar category.
I expect a few more from his generation to add their insights to existing fields or point to new fields during the next few years. He and his peers have been retired and now realize that they themselves must write before they kick off.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Cosmos, the Carl Sagan documentary series from the 80's, has been airing on the Discovery channel this past month. If you want an example of what a science documentary should be this is it. In depth an yet presented in a way that is understandable. Not that I have a problem with the news magazine format but we could really use more programming like Cosmos and more people like Dr. Sagan
Can't televisions networks produce anything that's isn't interesting in it's own right without trying to be trendy? Can't they produce something that isn't intended for someone with a 3 second attention span?
They can't present a machine going through the motions in normal speed. They have to shave off a few seconds my constantly speeding video up several times. Either that or they spam the view with a barrage of imagery that never quite convey anything. Some shows are so bad about it to the point of it being a distracting. They can't get into detail with anything instead glossing over everything and instead presenting simplistic facts. And almost worst of all are the obnoxious hosts who can't be professional and serious, preferring to be stupid twits instead.
And it looks like advertising is leading he way with this garbage. Advertisers no longer just have a person stand in front of a camera and speak. Now they have to splice together a series of unrelated nonsense statements that don't actually make any point. I guess it's more "real" that way. And that's when they aren't filming the proceedings with a jittery camera that isn't constantly going out of focus. It's enough to drive someone insane.
It's sad that PBS has succumbed to this sort of nonsense. But then, what do you expect considering how pervasive this garbage is on American television. We have 24 hour news networks that can spare more than 30 seconds for a news story. Everything is always presented like they're in a rush. But they never provide anything of substance to begin with, instead regurgitating whatever poor investigating some other news agency passes for journalism.
I guess it's fairly apparent I don't like television much.
PBS has been struggling for years to figure out how to compete against the Discovery nonfiction channels (TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, and their lesser siblings) in science programming, and to a lesser extent, National Geographic and other comers. PBS has also struggled to see how the long-form documentary can continue to hold market share in a world that won't watch YouTube videos that run longer than two minutes.
The old guard in television cannot fully grok the mindset of those who've come of age during the internet age and its panoply of media choices. But they do understand that without adaptation, they will die. So they tend to focus on acquiring the look-and-feel of new media (but not the vital essences), hoping that will make them seem relevant to new-media users. Lipstick on a pig, and all that. Very nice lipstick, sometimes, but....
NOVA wisely invested early in web programming, and their science websites are superb examples of what can be done with Web 1.0. (Heh heh, I should disclose I wrote one of those to go along with the film I made. You can see it here. Check out the "Dispatches" section for some old-skool science blogging.)
NOVA on television has resisted surrendering its brand identity against immense financial pressure, as well as cultural pressure to "liven up," "get hip," and other assorted me-too thinking that says no one will sit and watch a quality hour anymore. NOVA hasn't quite caved, but you can see the difference when comparing latest product against films from earlier years. Still, once you see what they've been up against, NOVA is still a marvel of principle and plain old stubbornness.
As for the purported modern lack of an audience for high-quality single-subject programs...I don't buy it.
I'm part of the PBS advisory panel that's "focus-grouping" these new shows. (They don't even know I'm one of their past producers...and I ain't sayin'.) Trust me, PBS has marshaled extraordinary user input throughout the development of this new programming. They have done their homework. Nonetheless, I've been thinking it was the wrong homework assignment.
IMO, focus-group design by consensus can yield good quality, but not brilliance. Can anyone imagine focus-grouping The Secret Life of Machines? The Day the Universe Changed? (Or to stretch it a bit, even Mystery Science Theater 3000?) Those shows, and other greats, rely on irrepressible characters who, like the author of a great book, slowly but surely make you realize they're in on a great secret. And that they want to let you in on it.
Ok, some of these people are not poster children for The Seven Habits of Successful People, and could probably use a better haircut, but you just know they'd be doing this show for free (or maybe they did). It's not their panache but their passion that infects you like a Russian hacker's virus and absorbs you into their conspiracy. Their world is more full of dynamite and diamond pipes and Tesla coils and grizzly bears taking sunbaths and...and...they seem to have figured out how one thing connects to another. Their world is equal parts revealed truth and grand fun. Maybe even more grand fun than revealed truth. They make you realize the riches of the world lie around your feet like November leaves in such abundance that you haven't even noticed them as you kick your way forward each day.
They open your eyes. They make you stay awake in your bed way too late and dream about the places you really can't wait any longer to go...and damn it, someday you will...then you fall asleep.
I love Wired magazine, and have all kinds of cool electronica, and download books off Demonoid while I'm TiVoing BBC docs while I'm walking the stacks at the library while I'm listening to a podcast. But that doesn't mean I want a science show modeled on Entertainment Tonight's magazine format. I don't want hip poseurs, even if they've been coached not to seem like poseurs. I don't want beautiful people
it's not worth watching without Bill Nye.
hat is unacceptible! Unexpectidly unacceptible. As unexpected as...
Leonard Nimoy sings the "Ballad of Bilbo Baggins">?
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
"Trust me, PBS has marshaled extraordinary user input throughout the development of this new programming."
"PBS, give me that, and I will watch you until you are the last channel still broadcasting."
Why is PBS struggling?
I can never find a stable schedule for shows in my area.
I'm not talking fluctuating for months, I'm talking fluctuating for years, here.
I could honestly not tell you what night Nova or Frontline, etc. are on my local PBS station.
You know why? It's never the same.
I can log on to PBS and see when the next episodes of these shows are scheuduled and what they are about. But guess what? They won't air where I am at.
How many times must I tune in and see a "viewer's choice" block (whatever that is)? How many times must a 20 year old episode of Rick Steve's Europe pre-empt Nova? It seems the only viewer input PBS values are the donor's.
This thread makes me wonder, what are some GOOD examples of Science podcasts/vodcasts?
Eric B
ebresie@gmail.com
Some of the best science books and shows I've seen are both educational and entertaining. Entertaining does just mean jazzy images and special effects, but that one tell a good story. Aristotle described the proper elements of a story 2300 years ago in his Poetics. Any novelist, screenwriter, journalist, etc. still follows these rules if they wish to be a success. These rules include plot, conflict, character development.
With the serial numbers filed off (and a new voice over). England's Horizon program is a truly awesome science documentary series, even covering some things that might not be considered traditional science programming. I haven't seen Horizon straight from the Beeb in a few years and wikipedia sites this article about it being dumbed down, but the best Nova episodes were simply episodes from Horizon.
The bitter lessons of a veteran coder: http://bitterprogrammer.blogspot.com
Why don't they just have the cast members/hosts compete in some Real World/Road Rules obstacle-course challenge, and award the winners their show?
Gravity is a contributing factor in nearly 73 percent of all accidents involving falling objects. -Dave Barry
I've never been a fan of Wired, even back when they were the Whole Earth Catalog (yes, its true!). Believe it or not they actually renamed the Earth once. evidently "Earth" wasn't cool enough for them. Pink type on green backgrounds in the magazine didn't help me like them any better either. They have always tried to cast themselves as the source of all that is cool and the definers of what is worthwhile.
I did not see the show, but I am not one bit surprised that their presenters were super cool 20-something know-it-alls. Its all true to form.
I said some. Are you familiar with the terminology? I had my grandmother, specifically, in mind. I didn't bother to mention her before, but since you demand proof, there it is.
You don't even know my age. You were either predisposed to take offense, or a troll. I should have suspected a troll. It is Tuesday, after all, and some people think it's funny to troll on Tuesdays.
Yup, you're a troll. With all those technical degrees, surely you would have learned about quantities, and how "some" differs from "all."
IHBT.
So far, only watched Science Investigators. What strikes me right off, is how much filler and noise is in here. I got to watch some guy drive his car on the way to talk to scientists, I got to hear him repeat a question "Are Neanderthals related to modern humans?" again to the audience, followed immediately by him asking the scientist the same question. So repetitive! Then some more repetition. Then call another investigator on the cellphone or laptop videophone, and repeat the summary.
On the bright side, I could just tell that the "investigator" is not merely a physicist; he's probably a metalhead. Hope to see him some day, headbanging by my side in front of the stage. (And later, he demonstrates how to use a volt-meter! No way! Awesome, he's from the 1980s!)
Same thing on the frog story. Guy says he's going to go talk to someone. Later, we get to see him in his car, where he re-summarizes that he's on his way. As a bonus, he even tells us what we're going to think, "It should be interesting."
Was that my favorite part? No, my favorite part is when they explain things that might make frogs disappear. There's a montage, where each word is accompanied by a picture. During the word "pollution", we see steam coming from a power plant's (presumably nuclear?) cooling towers. Aha!! That's it! The frogs are being killed by steam pollution! If we'd just keep water out of the atmosphere, the frogs would be happy.
The topics are interesting enough. I just don't know why the show has to be so lame. It could probably be edited from an hour down to 20 minutes without losing any info, and once you realize that, the superficiality is apparent.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.