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."
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)
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.
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?