All:
Just try to challenge the "Dr's and Prof's" who narrate TV shows, no matter
how politely, and you will be shunned and ignored. This is true of any
"priesthood." Does this advance science? We are not supposed to use our
critical faculties--especially if the narrator is famous. This is most often
the case even if one bends over backward to be properly respectful and does
it in a way that helps the person save face--unfortunately, so many use
"witch-hunt" tactics, perversely thinking they will be elevated if they put
someone else down, so people are naturally quite gun-shy of people who shoot
from the hip, and every critic looks like a gunslinger at a distance.
My wife (a professor and museum curator) once welcomed a "documentary" crew
to film some exhibit material and her speaking on-camera. To her chagrin she
ended up "in" a sensational TV show where her remarks were placed out of
context, leaving a questionable (to put it politely) impression with respect
to her knowledge and conveying "information" in the guise of "science." She
regrets being so cooperative. She is embarrassed all over again every time
the "show" is repeated.
Of course, mistakes can happen. From my own experience, reporters can get it
wrong--not because they intentionally do so, but because they were CERTAIN
that they understood (and I must say that I have erred in presuming that
they understood, too). This unfortunate phenomenon could be averted much of
the time if the reporters/editors/producers would clear the piece with the
originator of the information/testimony. But the news cycle is so short that
this is not done. But the damage also is done--and whom does it come back to
haunt?
Yes, yes, YES! If only all students and citizens were actually taught
skepticism in the schools. If skeptics were only the only part of the
problem, there would be no/a lesser problem . . .
If the Internet would grow up and achieve its potential, if all claims as to
fact were linked to the chain of evidence, then ordinary folk would at least
have the ability to check the facts. These folk (or anyone else) should not
have to check the evidence if the scientific reporting has been done with
adequate journalistic skill. Of course, if the attribution is correct, the
responsibility falls upon the source; still, the reporter should not twist
the source's testimony out of context--KISS!
Caveat emptor is, it seems to me, the point of this discussion. It exists.
It shouldn't. But since it does, pressure for better reporting will help
change direction for the better. Sure, there are cherries in the tree, but
those which look so good from below have sometimes been pecked by crows. A
good reporter, like a good scientist, will be delighted to discover error
and correct it--hopefully before the piece hits the streets.
WT
----- Original Message -----
From: "malcolm McCallum" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 9:54 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Disseminating scientific thought to the general
public: are scientists making science readily accessible?
Having done a "little" unpublished research on this, people are
increasingly getting their news from the internet. Albeit some of
those sources may be the primary news channels and news programs, but
they are not reading the newspaper or watching news programs as much.
On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Esat Atikkan <[email protected]> wrote:
This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the
statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its
information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus
it
becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain
that a
significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that
criterion
was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples
would
be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X,
Y, Z
narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on.
Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because
the
next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has
risen,
a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that
is on
TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face
value.’
Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of
the
material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range
of
outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic,
fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables
that
the models incorporate are rarely discussed.
Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists –
interesting
science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated,
the
caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they
may
still be prototypes.
Are there learning opportunities on TV? – My response is a resounding Yes!
Each
item that is presented as ‘scientific fact’, ‘scientific discovery’,
‘technological breakthrough’ and the like, that is of interest to me (or
potentially to my students) opens up research to chase down the facts.
Not sure if it truly applies to material that we acquire via the media,
but
caveat emptor does come to mind.
Esat Atikkan
--
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology
"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" -
Allan Nation
1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert
1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
and pollution.
2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1204 / Virus Database: 1435/3511 - Release Date: 03/16/11
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
