Representing Science In The Media?

[Titan]

How do you feel about the current "repersentatives" of science in main stream media?

For example, Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are some of the more popular scientists that have a siginifacnt

presence on news networks and tv shows. I personally enjoy both, Bill was an engineer and i grew up

watching his shows. Tyson hosted the new Cosmos and also hosts Star talk radio which is a pretty cool

concept.

 

As with anything, they do have their critics. The type of people who believe the Earth is 10,000 years old(obviously),

but there also a small fraction of critics who are people that enjoy and follow science that claim people like Nye and Tyson dont represent

the pure form of science and that they are sell outs ect..

 

Do you think we are headed in the right direction? More specifically, do you think these

science "celebreties" are doing a suffcient job at helping increase scientific litracy amond the general public?

 

 

[Buffy]

Ha, ha! :cheer:

 

I've spent a large part of my career as a VP of marketing of software companies, and having spent a lot of time on stages and in front of the media--and more importantly, often having to push very technical people out in the public eye to promote products--I can tell you that finding "natural" communicators in the scientific community is, ahem, a "challenge."

 

Do you remember the Math or Physics professor you had in college that was basically unintelligible? They are the rule rather than the exception, unfortunately. Not really good if you're trying to put them on teevee in front of a potential audience of millions and have them be coherent, let alone entertaining.

 

Now at the same time, ALL scientists have egos, many of them huge ones. The result of that is when any of them see a Bill Nye or Neil D Tyson on teevee they all say "oh I could do that better than they could," or "I know so much more than they do: they're not experts," no matter how inept they are at real PR. So you do end up hearing a lot of whinging from them, but in fact it's really tough to find someone who is both an expert and can be lucid enough for popular culture.

 

Whenever I hear someone say something like that (and I often do because my mom is very involved with programs at Cal Tech), I say, "gee, you should try it! You'll probably be bigger than they are!" which usually actually shuts them up because their egos have been stroked but they know they're not as good as they think.

 

 

Part of me suspects that I'm a loser, and the other part of me thinks I'm God Almighty, :phones:

Buffy

[Titan]

It definitely is one thing to be an expert in a field, and a completely different task to be a communicator that

can effectively reach out to millions of people who vary in terms of understanding and intellect. 

 

Good insight on the fact that big egos do exist. I'm usually under the realm that at its core science is humbling if anything.

However you're right, we are humans, we like to compete and outdo one another. 

[sanctus]

I do not know these 2 guys, not having a TV and not following US-shows online. But my question is, aren't they better than the two alternatives(there might be more, but came up with only these ones):

 

1) They are replaced by no one; i.e if they don't do it science completely gets out of the spotlight.

2) They are replaced by the unintelligible physicists.

[Titan]

Yes i would without a doubt agree that they are better than the alternatives you mention!

They are on the front lines of make making science the topic of discussion for the public.

 

Sanctus, so you haven't seen the series called "Cosmos"?

 

I admire the fact that you dont affiliate your self with these things that most people cannot live without, very interesting. 

[sanctus]

Titan, the only thing you miss when you do not have a TV is some shows. I do stream movies and series, I read news online everyday. So it is not as hardcore as it sounds, reason is more practical than anything else:

1) I find movies I want when streaming, while on a TV veeeery often they are not what I like

2) We do not have a TV just because our place is quite small

 

And yes, I never saw Cosmos

[Deepwater6]

I feel most of the science representatives for shows like "The Universe" are watered down so to speak to appeal to a wider audience. It's hard to find shows that delve deeper into certain topics. The best at getting around this that I've found is the series "Through The Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman. This show usually has people specific to the topic of the show and go a little more in depth on the subject. 

[Titan]

I feel most of the science representatives for shows like "The Universe" are watered down so to speak to appeal to a wider audience. It's hard to find shows that delve deeper into certain topics. The best at getting around this that I've found is the series "Through The Wormhole" with Morgan Freeman. This show usually has people specific to the topic of the show and go a little more in depth on the subject. 

 

That is one of the complaints critics had of the new cosmos;saying that it filtered through a lot of information and knowledge in order for the public to have some sort of interest in it.

I think it boils down to where you are at personally, if you are a post doctoral astrophysicist, then cosmos MAY not appeal to you as much as someone who is barely discovering how vast the universe is.

 

 

The original cosmos was a great series that i think did a sufficient job at communicating science through visualizations, story telling and the charismatic nature of Sagan.

Overall i think having good communicators of science is very important, people like Sagan were very inspirational to me and sparked my initial interest in science.

[pgrmdave]

In my experience, scientists in particular tend to be very concerned with accuracy of language and presentation. Unfortunately, this sometimes gets in the way of effective communication. Words, as used by scientists, can have very specific meanings - a form of jargon - that are not understood by everybody. Simple things like "force", "work", "energy", and "chaos" can all be misinterpreted, which either leads to the scientist using those words and being misunderstood *or* the scientist trying to explain what the word means and confusing people.