|
|
|
|
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:00:57 AM | I was discussing this topic last night with a very interesting individual. Sometimes discovery's are made, or changes that people most of us would find jaw dropping, and yet... it doesn't seem to make the front page. There are of course exceptions, like the first moon landing, or the LHC kicking off it's first test around the giant rings. But like the first moon landing, it seems following the space shuttles isn't worth the front page unless something dramatic happens. Like the LHC, it will be big news when it starts out, but it would be an easy prediction that once there tests become routine and every day, no headlines will come out of it unless something awe inspiring and shocking comes out of it. People are generally more interested in what is effecting themselves directly like the economy, or effects there interests directly, like what there favorite idle is up to then the discovery of a new star, or black hole.
I guess my question is... why aren't people more interested in the going on of science? It seems like no one even knew about the LHC before they did that big test run on the news... then all of a sudden, everyone has an opinion. Some people I start talking about huge concepts in science up with, and they just look at me like I'm talking Greek.
Every year, we see technology change, and evolve before I very eyes. We sat and listened to the radio for news... it was the best thing ever. The black and white TV is introduced, the best thing ever! The color TV obsoletes the black and white TV. Big screens bring home theaters to your very living rooms. And now, it's moving forward again as we start to see 3D Tv's that don't require glasses hitting the prototype shelves, but none of this scientific discovery makes the news, sure... when people are walking around in the show room... Wow something new and improved... and I can't help but ask myself... why aren't people more interested in what we are learning, and not just about consuming the end result of the work of others. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:20:00 AM | Science really isn't that interesting to most people. When you look at the number of degrees awarded, science and engineering are surprisingly way down on the list.
News has morphed into another means to make people look at advertising. Front page news is what will attract people to tolerate the ads that come with it. That means checking out what is being Googled most and creating a story related to it. Then,if possible, ange the story to get everyone talking (arguing) about it. TV news seems full of 'entertainment', watching polar opposites argue their biased and often whacky side of the story. An upscale version of cagefighting.
The other thing about science is that progress is usually slow. The LHC might be a neat machine, but it hasn't exactly rocked the world (thankfully! according to some) since it came online. Scientist can be (and usually are) off the mark with their ideas or experiments. Hubble made a big splash in the News, but immediately became an object of some ridicule when it didn't work because of a manufacturing defect. No-one needs to have to deal with that in addition to their work (which often benefits from accidents and errors).
Edit: BTW - thanks for introducing a science topic in the science forum! | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 9:39:11 AM | People know about news from the media. The media is driven by ratings, and sales. What is shocking, sells and raises ratings. What is not, doesn't. People are more apt to read about something that shocks them, especially if it is something that sounds like it could seriously harm them. As the saying goes "There is no news like bad news". That's why the media will happily cover serial killers, terrorist attacks, and political scandals for weeks and months, poring over every little bit of information related to it, no matter how distant. That's also why when someone saves 20 lives, it will get one by-line today, and then tomorrow it's forgotten. If it's shocking, or if it suggests it might harm us, we will read about it, and that will increase ratings and sales, and so it will get a bigger headline, and more stories. If it's not, it's just not in the interests of the private companies that own media sources to spend much time or effort on them.
If the media is a public institution, say owned by the government, then it almost always focusses on those stories that help the government promote itself, and then it is equally unreliable.
There are plenty of science stories that have little shock-value that make it to the media. But they are almost always being pushed by a PR agency, which is part of a wider advertising campaign paid for by anything from private companies trying to encourage sales of their products, to charities trying to encourage donations, to governments trying to push their own initiatives or just to encourage more voter support in one of the political parties. I used to work in such an agency, and it was just incredible about how many news reports that weren't the current big story were paid for by ad campaigns, and that the actual text of the news reports were scripted, and literally every word had to be approved by the ad agency before it was put out to the media. One stuck in my mind, because it was relating to a rise in breast cancer rates. Who were the media stations it was aimed at? Women aged 25-40. Who paid for it? A very high profile insurance agency. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that they were trying to scare women into buying more life insurance.
If you want to know about scientific inventions and discoveries, you cannot rely on any media sources that have any sort of agenda that is not directly related to reporting facts, and that is pretty much every form of media source in existence. You'll get reports, and lots of things will make it to the media, so it's still worth reading. But you may see:
1) 1 small report of one how Broomfields hospital got rid of MRSA 100% using methods that could be copied everywhere,
2) Another small report about how Dutch hospitals reported the same,
3) Lots of reports on how MRSA is being improved in hospitals up and down the UK using similar methods, but only a 10%-30% decrease, but never see Broomfields or Dutch hospitals mentioned again, or why any other hospitals are encountering such continued resistance when those hospitals obliterated MRSA almost overnight
4) 10 reports of possible cures for MRSA using pharmaceutical drugs that will cost thousands of pounds each.
It's not obivous what's going on, if you look at today's paper or today's New Scientist. But if you save your old copies of New Scientist, and you remember what went on in any one subject, then when you piece together all the reports in any one field over years, it produces a very damning impression. When you do the same over many fields of research, one wonders who exactly is controlling the use of scientific research, because it sure doesn't look like it's being used all that often for the benefit of humanity. One starts to wonder if it's just become another way to make money, and that's a real shame. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:25:32 AM | | Not nearly enough. Obviously, astronomy has a bit of an advantage over other scientists because it generates visually appealing pictures. However, you're not going to see many sociology t-shirts. | |
|
| |
| |
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 3:47:57 PM | MSN has a whole section devoted to science and technology every day.
Sure...most people don't pay attention to science, until it up and slaps them in the face. There are some "watchdogs"...who makes it their job to start lobbying against some science the moment it rears its head. They get a head start shutting down some science advancements because of religious reasons or whatever. Such as in stem cell research, human cloning, etc, etc.
Mini nuclear reactors are used now in hospitals to supply power. Army bases are seriously looking at them, if they don't have them already! Now if the anti-nuke crowd knew about that stuff ahead of time, would we see these places with power during major blackouts? Nope...but they run along just fine.....and the anti-nuke people sit in the dark totally oblivious to the nuke in their midst! LOL! I love it!
Why aren't people really interested, on the average level? Cause of overload. We are making so many new discoveries and inventions and such...a person just can't keep up. Not to mention that they can now "cherry-pick" the technology and science that suits their lifestyles! | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 4:06:09 PM | | We don't live in a very science friendly world. Unless you can make it fun and flashy, and spice it up with extraordinary claims, most won't care about it. The big important stuff is what stupid celebrity just had a kid, what new annoying idiotic crap Kanye West has said to someone, and how Barack Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ. These are the issues most people (at least in America) really find stimulating and interesting. It's a wonder we haven't destroyed ourselves with this massive plague of ignorance. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 7:27:58 PM | BukkRogers comments ….
It's a wonder we haven't destroyed ourselves with this massive plague of ignorance.
Give it time ….. we’re almost there. And why is this happening? Children in school today are rewarded for how well they can regurgitate memorized material. They are not being taught how to question anything that is put before them ….but to accept it as “the almighty truth”
The internet has opened the doors to science and to knowledge for anyone who seeks it ….. TV has an agenda of it’s own ….
Peace …..the FairyHealer | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 7:31:17 PM | Paul K: Sociology is not a science.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Stargazer: says who?
The pseudoscience thread...oh, and the is "psychology a science thread"... | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:21:26 PM | I was thinking about this thread, and just this morning, on the front page of the newspaper, was a little blurb about tornadoes, with a cutaway model of the classic anvil-shaped thunderstorm and how these long spiky updrafts led to the formation of tornadoes. It kind of made me feel good, because I was one of the people who discovered these updrafts in real data. The models had predicted these updrafts, but people thought they were wrong, because people had been looking at the datasets with horizontal contour plots that showed only circles. I applied my own isosurface algorithm to the Socorro data, and those spiky updrafts were plain as day.
Anyway, I guess science does make the actual front page, albeit a couple of decades later. | |
|
rabsy
|
Joined: 10/26/2009
Msg: 12 | |
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:35:21 PM | Good question.
People want drama and sensationilism. This gets attetnion you're right.
It's very sad it's this way too.
You're probably better off talking with just ordinary people and their experiences because they will tell you more than a newspaper.
But, there are magazines out there so don't lose faith.
The internet is facinating for the findings of new science and ofcourse I can't leave out the social sciences.
Keep searching and good luck. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/4/2009 9:13:25 AM | Re: Paul K
Sociology is not a science.
... opening words on Wikipedia
"Sociology is the scientific..." | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/8/2009 6:11:16 AM | Not only is front-page science disappearing, but along with it are going the science journalists:
http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3523
Society seems to be becoming attracted to a large volume of sound bites, like we're population afflicted with ADHD. It's no wonder that science, which is traditionally an accumulation of knowledge over long periods, is being pushed aside for the "quick fixes". | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/8/2009 6:59:56 AM | RE Msg: 14 by novascotialass:
Not only is front-page science disappearing, but along with it are going the science journalists:
http://www.j-source.ca/english_new/detail.php?id=3523 You can thank the desire of businesses to cut costs, and the rise of the internet for that.
The article points out:
"Science journalism is in decline; science blogging is growing fast. But can the one replace the other?" However, the same is happening all over journalism. News stations found out years ago, that if they opened a website, and encouraged average people to respond to it, that they could get the average person to do the reporting for them. As a result, a LOT of big news stories that used to be covered by professional journalists, are actually being covered by ordinary people who happened to be on the scene, recorded footage on their mobiles, uploaded them to the news station's website, and are then put out on the news using that footage, as is. It means that news stations don't have to employ a whole load of journalists. They only need editors to edit the footage and the blogs that are posted, and can sack most of the journalists, saving them tons of money.
The disadvantage is that instead of having a few professional viewpoints, you get a LOT of amateur ones, with the types of reporting that you see expressed here on POF, with all the conflicts and problems that go with them.
It's not just live on-site reporting that has gone this way. Even when you read a news story, these days you can find almost exactly the same story, word for word, on every site, which is almost always copied from forum reports, which are equally copied from one blogger's post, who got the story from the source, but put his own spin on it.
Amateur people are now reporting the news. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:17:22 AM |
"Science journalism is in decline; science blogging is growing fast. But can the one replace the other?" However, the same is happening all over journalism.
Amateur people are now reporting the news.
And I would argue that that is not necessarily a good thing.
Professional journalists are trained. Generally speaking, they have a certain ethic that dictates a certain standard to reporting the news. And I am referring, of course, to the "in the trenches" reporting, not talking heads like Pete Mansbridge, Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer.
Everything requires context. That's why multiple sources are important. A professional knows that, and how to get those multiple sources. An amateur frequently doesn't. Their blog or video is often an "editorial." Not a fair and balanced story. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:22:08 AM | | And how often does an amateur discover a science story that strikes their fancy? Unless it has an immediate impact on society, I'd say very few. It has to be of the magnitude where it affects whole populations (e.g., H1N1 or countries disappearing from rising ocean levels) for the average Joe to be even interested. Perhaps that's why Al Gore reverted to scare tactics, just to get people to sit up and take notice. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/8/2009 9:30:58 AM | I think in this day and age a different approach to teaching science is in order. Compared to the drivel I had to watch during school, the sheer volume of great educational info (tainment) available should be a standard element of our school's science classes.
I think if the exposure level went up the interest level would also climb, but you have to figure that even then it just won't grab everyone's attention.
When one does look at what science stories made the front page many of them would follow the likes of sheep cloning and they made the front page just because they were quirky enough to sell papers. Good headlines and all that. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/8/2009 11:03:31 AM | RE Msg: 16 by stargazer1000:
"Science journalism is in decline; science blogging is growing fast. But can the one replace the other?" However, the same is happening all over journalism. Amateur people are now reporting the news. And I would argue that that is not necessarily a good thing.
Professional journalists are trained. Generally speaking, they have a certain ethic that dictates a certain standard to reporting the news. And I am referring, of course, to the "in the trenches" reporting, not talking heads like Pete Mansbridge, Bill O'Reilly or Wolf Blitzer. The problem currently with the news, is of a change in attitude. Back when I was a kid, news reporters were supposed to report the news, and nothing more. They accepted an obligation to try and report the news as objectively as possible, without putting their own personal opinions into it. Where there were multiple views on an issue, they accepted that they would have to try to show ALL views, including the views that they totally disagree with. That had the benefit that news stories would not then be tailored to support the views or interests of any particular political party, or any corportation, or any lobbyist group.
However, times have changed. I've seen so many news stories which are clearly presented in favour of a particular viewpoint, that I cannot rely on the news to give me the full picture. I've seen many news reports where the reporters are actually stating their own opinions as if it was news.
This has fundamentally changed the landscape of the news, to become more like a Western version of Pravda, except that the media often have their own agenda, either as a united industry over some issues, dismissing the views of those who do not agree with the media, or as each particular news stations' political and social beliefs, with different news stations reporting the same issues in completely different ways. Even when it comes to user-provided reporting, it's filtered to mostly give the views that the media station wishes to influence the world to believe in. Sometimes they do offer a differing opinion, but it's usually one against many, and only to give the impression that they aren't being biased, when they clearly are.
In the area of science reporting, I'm amazed at just how fundamentally differently the media presents things. In the media, it's always presented as if the vast majority of stem cell research comes from cells from foetuses. That has 2 effects, that many religious people who see foetuses as living entites, and are opposed to using foetuses as if they were pieces of meat to be examined and tested, think that this is the vast majority of stem cell research, and are opposed to it, and that many people who are very much in favour of science, feel that this is entirely an oppression of science.
However, it was only recently here on POF, that a poster who is actively engaged in the field of biology, posted very clearly that the vast majority of stem cell research does NOT involve foetal cells, and that the minority that does, is devoted to the study of abortions and foetal development. As the religious pro-life people feel very strongly that we need to protect foetuses and learn about them, that we might save many more from miscarriages, avoidable deformities, avoidable underdevelopment, and the like, they would almost certainly have never opposed stem cell research of this type, and certainly have never opposed stem cell research in general, since most of it doesn't have anything to do with foetuses in the first place.
It therefore seems to me, that the media industry have manufactured a massive conflict, simply to make it newsworthy for years, that sells lots more papers, and gets them lots more ratings, whenever anything that is to do with stem cells comes up. But it has had the added effect that it held up stem cell research for years, for no good reason whatsoever, other than to make people in the media industry rich.
But then again, no-one is holding them to account for that, or for any other serious ongoing misrepresentation of the facts, and when they are, they are fined far less than the profits they make from such misrepresentations. That makes for incredible power with almost no responsibility, almost absolute power. We all know what happens when someone gets almost absolute power. It almost always almost absolutely corrupts. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/9/2009 1:14:11 PM | I heard recently that most networks & media have wound up any speialized science reporting groups, so it doesn't look like things will get better soon. It was interesting to see the page linked by Novascotialass had a suggestion that scientists should do their own promoting. If you look at the AAAS website for the 2010 meeting, they are moving along those lines too. Great! - more non-science (almost sounds like nonsense!) to keep scientists away from doing science. If you look at the AAAS website for the 2010 meeting, they are moving along those lines too. I reckon already less than 50 cents of every science research dollar goes into actual scientific research.
Perhaps, given a little more time, good journalism will be seen as worthwhile. Just as people are becoming willing to pay a little extra for organic food, A valuable niche market for 'old fashioned' news will evolve. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/9/2009 1:28:06 PM | I'm curious if anyone here has read "Unscientific America" which is about this very topic. The author details how science has become pushed to the side and left to the scientists alone (and he does place some of the blame on scientists themselves -- it will make more sense if you read the book).
That being said, I think the problem is that science just isn't sexy or explosiony enough. Maybe if John McClane was a theoretical physicist with a PhD in kicking particle ass, people would care more. Although you can argue that people do care about science, as long as it is used for things other then knowledge alone. Look up how the NFL figures out QB ratings, it's a multi-level algorithm that assigns a QB an arbitrary number to determine how good he's playing. Ask a person at Best Buy how a plasma projector works or take apart a Playstation 3 and look inside.
Science is only interesting to people when you attach a naked chick or a man with a gun and a gravelly voice to it. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/9/2009 1:32:13 PM |
Maybe if John McClane was a theoretical physicist with a PhD in kicking particle ass, people would care more.
And the other side is the peril of having movie makers try and do something with a science "theme." There was a movie a while ago on TV about some piece of a "brown dwarf" impacting the moon and causing all manner of mayhem. Oh, the bad science that ensued from that premise.
[quotes]Science is only interesting to people when you attach a naked chick
Works for me. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/9/2009 2:52:14 PM |
I heard recently that most networks & media have wound up any speialized science reporting groups, so it doesn't look like things will get better soon. Seriously? Is that what it's like in your country? WOW! In the UK, there are quite a few sciency programmes, even in Prime Time TV, like "Bang Goes the Theory", where they do scientific experiments and blow things up, and "Life" by Sir David Attenborough, which is a really great programme about all the species in the world. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/9/2009 4:33:51 PM | over here ... probably the most popular science show is Myth Busters.
its done by two special effects technicians and they test popular myths. | |
|
| How front page is science?
Posted: 11/9/2009 5:05:58 PM | RE Msg: 24 by Thorb:
over here ... probably the most popular science show is Myth Busters.
its done by two special effects technicians and they test popular myths. Wow. That's not even shown any more, and even when it was, it was only on a minor channel.
I just watched an hour's science programme on BBC1, one of the 5 main channels, 9pm-10pm, in Prime Time. Tomorrow there's another science programme, on BBC2, again one of the 5 main channels, again 9pm-10pm, Prime Time. We get quite a few science programmes over here.
I always thought North America had lots more channels. We already have loads of soaps, too many to watch, too many teen programmes, lots of sitcoms, lots of films, and lots of sport. So how can it be that we get so much, and STILL have plenty of time for science programmes, and you have so many more channels, and yet have so little time for science on TV? | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
