The ABC has a great analysis on the Timor Sea oil spill and how the mainstream media only started paying attention once the leaking rig burst into flames.
Endangered marine life? Pah. Big explosions?! Now you’re talking!
It’s an unfortunate reality: science doesn’t sell; sex (and other big bangs) does.
But what’s the lesson in all this for the environmental community? Do greenies need to suck up their pride to find a sexy, sell-able angle to their causes for the greater good? Or with a bit more persistence, can journalists (and the public) be won over with “worthiness”?
UPDATE: Reader and journalist Anastasia Joyce has let me know about her new site Wotwaste, which attempts to do this in a really constructive way by finding interesting angles to the issue of waste and pollution with articles like “What’s waste got to do with organic chemistry and Queen Victoria’s mauve dress?” and “Is human hair really used in pizzas and bakeries?”
Perhaps there is a happy medium to be found between tabloid twists and uber-dry science spiels after all.
3 Comments
I studied Science Communication (B Sc/B A) for four years and worked for a few major networks (including the ABC). I loved trying to communicate issues in new and interesting ways, but after a few years of banging my head against the wall I tired of having to dumb down every issue to the lowest common denominator. I’m not sure if it’s because those in charge have contempt for the intelligence of the viewing public, or (regrettably more likely) that the public doesn’t want to hear about science unless it’s related to celebrity meltdowns, but every science story needed a buzzword or a hook to an issue the public was cognizant of.
I left the field to work in economics – at least explaining concepts and problems is valued in this field, if only because it’s related to the profits of those who’ve commissioned the work.
The emissions trading laughing stock is a perfect example – a sham peddled as a climate change panacea to a population who wants to appear as if they care but don’t want to pay. Earth Hour and other such placebos spring to mind as well.
For God’s sake, either pay to fix the environment (yes, it will cost money), or just admit that we’re going to keep up business as usual and break out the cocktails. Make mine a double.
I was once interviewed by ABC TV (for the Catalyst program) about some research I’d done a few years previously. Given that Catalysts is about the driest and more ’serious’ science show on Aussie TV, I found the whole thing pretty dissapointing. The interviewer came with a preset idea about what phrases she wanted me to say, which were completely ridiculous and unrelated to the research, and the interview went round in circles for a while until she simply called cut, explained what answers she wanted me to say and then started rolling again.
The final product was a pretty drab segment, which is a shame because the research really was interesting, just not in the ways they assumed and of course they know best because scientists are idiot savants that need science journalists to act as their mouthpeice, at least that’s the impression I get talking to Sci-Com grads and students.
I remember once watching a spoof news show where the politics and sport were all dumbed down and slightly wrong in the same way as is done with pretty much every science story.
It was very funny, but also very sad because it showed the extent of the problem.
The other big problem in Australia is the forgotten profession – Engineering. Every interesting Engineering story is told as ’science’.