NationStates Jolt Archive

Sensationalism in the media over complicated scientific issues is creating a "Boy who cried wolf" situation that is gonna blow up in our faces.

How can we improve our chances of communicating current science to the masses in an intelligent way?

How can we know which horse to back when the media simply can even begin to understand the problems themselves let alone communicate it to the masses.

Is it bird flu, global warming or just grand stupidity and greed that is gonna take us down?

The only way you can remove sensationalism in the media is to take away freedom of speech and tell them what they can say. I would rather be told that I'm going to die from Monster Raving Bird SARS than live in a totalitarian society.

I don’t think it is a freedom of speech issue. The media and the scientific community have a very poor relationship. Very few issues in science are black and white and yet in order to make a story that is easy for the population at large to consume it must be made to look as if it is black and white.

Most of the science you get taught at school is really only an approximation of the up to date thinking. Newton’s laws.. updated.. evolution.. updated. If you spoke to someone who worked in the field they would be able to poke holes in all sorts of commonly accepted theories. So the issues are very difficult to convey to someone who is assumed to have very little to zero background in the area.

Most reporters have only a very basic understanding of scientific topics. They have very limited time to come to grips with the facts and often get fed watered down versions of current scientific theory by frustrated scientists.

This is evidenced by peoples perceptions of the issues. The mix up between the hole in the ozone layer and greenhouse gas emissions is a perfect example. These are two VERY separate issues that just happened to make it into the mainstream at about the same time. They are both climate issues to do with emissions and so they got lumped together, and could quite easily have been erroneously linked to acid rain also.

Once the idea that they were somehow linked was out there it was very difficult to correct. No matter how many times they were separated by bemused scientist they were inextricably linked in the minds of many reporters.. and hence in the minds of the public.

Sensationalism in the media is also a very difficult thing to manage with relation to scientific data. Often when investigating a problem the evidence can point towards there being a very high risk of some disastrous event happening. In order to get action on avoiding the risk the public have to be involved. In order to do that the media has to be involved. Often the risks are not as bad as first thought or may even be inaccurate. However often the risks are averted due to actions taken. Consequently the doom and gloom sensationalist media attention is rarely followed by the suggested disaster.

Take SARS for example. SARS had the potential to be a very nasty epidemic. In the end it was well contained and compared to the numbers that could have been effected it was relatively painless. Instead of being viewed as a success of media and scientific collaboration it is often portrayed as media beat up over an over hyped fear. The truth probably lies somewhere in between.

Eventually you get to the point where the public thinks you are just crying wolf. Thats when you get caught out. The risk of a world wide bird flu epidemic was real. (I work in the field) but it was/is just that. A risk. The pieces are all there. They may fit together they may not. Whether you take out insurance is a difficult choice that has to be made by weighing up the costs of action and inaction.

If I insure my house and it never burns down then that is an enormous amount of money wasted that I could have spent enjoying myself. But would that good time outweigh the constant worry.. let alone the loss if it were to actually burn down. Tough choices.

Eventually we as a species are gonna make a bad call. We will insure against a problem that may never occur and take no insurance (or not enough) against another real threat. They only way (that I can see) that we can improve our chances of making more right choices and less bad ones is improved scientific communication.

How we do that though is the biggest question of all.

The only way you can remove sensationalism in the media is to take away freedom of speech.

Of we can stop being the kind of morons that soak up that crap. The media broadcasts what it's customers want, right now it seems we want to hear about all the thousands of different ways we will die.

Stupidity will very likely be the cause of humanity's downfall. After all, you need intelligence to solve other problems.

Of we can stop being the kind of morons that soak up that crap. The media broadcasts what it's customers want, right now it seems we want to hear about all the thousands of different ways we will die.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't soak it up. But how do you propose to change the attitudes of the billions who do?

Of we can stop being the kind of morons that soak up that crap. The media broadcasts what it's customers want, right now it seems we want to hear about all the thousands of different ways we will die.

Seems to me that the whole consummer driven media thing is a problem in itself. It means the media looses usefulness as a tool. It no longer communicates, it just sells...

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't soak it up. But how do you propose to change the attitudes of the billions who do?

With education standards so bad these days a lot of people really rely on the media to educate them. Only problem is that its not the media's business to educate... just to sell...

I don’t think it is a freedom of speech issue. The media and the scientific community have a very poor relationship. Very few issues in science are black and white and yet in order to make a story that is easy for the population at large to consume it must be made to look as if it is black and white.

*snip because you got it in the 1st paragraph*



The broadcast news media is interested primarily in ratings, therefore they must sensationalize stories. The print media experiences the same pressure to sell but to a far lesser extent, I think. And again, local and even network news broadcasts have a limited amount of time to present "the news" so they always go for the exciting story ("if it bleeds, it leads"). With a newspaper, you have as long as you like to read it, so while the sensational stuff might be on the front page, you, the reader, can always go looking for the rest.

Edit: Oh, and scientists are boring, let's face it. They really don't come across well in a two minute segment. Of course, if they discovered a planet of Britney Spears look-alikes, that might get more attention, but what are the chances?

Well it seems science has seen that this is a problem and has decided to form committees that promote its agenda in govt, education and public relations in a more palatable form than what you would normally expect from a highly technical person. Thanks science!

Edit: Oh, and scientists are boring, let's face it. They really don't come across well in a two minute segment. Of course, if they discovered a planet of Britney Spears look-alikes, that might get more attention, but what are the chances?

Maybe its because I am a scientist, but I really don't think scientists are as boring as you make out.

Talk to any little kid. Whats the question that they ask most... "Why?". People love to know how things work. Thats science. I don't understand how that is boring.

Sure science as taught in school. v = u + at, 2H2+O2 = 2H2O etc etc is boring. But thats not the science itself that is boring, thats just poor teaching. Its the need to be able test peoples knowledge to grade their progress that makes science boring... not science (or scientists)

Well it seems science has seen that this is a problem and has decided to form committees that promote its agenda in govt, education and public relations in a more palatable form than what you would normally expect from a high technical person. Thanks science!

But how well is that going?

How many people do you think feel they have a good handle on scientific issues.

How many people do you know who could confidently tell you what the scientific community was thinking on say .. evolution... let alone Stem cell research or global warming?

But how well is that going?

How many people do you think feel they have a good handle on scientific issues.

How many people do you know who could confidently tell you what the scientific community was thinking on say .. evolution... let alone Stem cell research or global warming?

Well as far as I know they have only just begun so I suppose we'll have to wait and see how well it goes.

In the meantime, people like you and I can merely do our part by praying to science and offering virgin sacrifices.

Maybe its because I am a scientist, but I really don't think scientists are as boring as you make out.

Talk to any little kid. Whats the question that they ask most... "Why?". People love to know how things work. Thats science. I don't understand how that is boring.

Sure science as taught in school. v = u + at, 2H2+O2 = 2H2O etc etc is boring. But thats not the science itself that is boring, thats just poor teaching. Its the need to be able test peoples knowledge to grade their progress that makes science boring... not science (or scientists)

I didn't say science was boring, I love science. And you may be the exception to what I said, but most of the scientists I see interviewed are not really exciting television personalities. Look at Carl Sagan, he was great, but his main legacy to popular culture was intoning "billions and billions of stars."

But that was just a side remark, the boring stuff. The main problem is, broadcast news needs sensationalism in order to capture an audience. Flesh-eating bacteria and the bird flu beat the following hands down:


research on the form of the cosmic microwave background radiation (2006 Nobel Prize for Physics)
the molecular mechanism for copying genes in eukaryotes (2006 for Chemistry)
RNA interference, which regulates gene expression and helps defend cells against viruses (2006 for Physiology or Medecine)

Sensationalism in the media over complicated scientific issues is creating a "Boy who cried wolf" situation that is gonna blow up in our faces.

How can we improve our chances of communicating current science to the masses in an intelligent way?


kill everybody.

no "masses" = no problem.

kill everybody.

no "masses" = no problem.

Except PM and Glitzi, they can breed the new race. I hope you're getting a lot of rest, lad. :p

Except PM and Glitzi, they can breed the new race. I hope you're getting a lot of rest, lad. :p

They are expecting? Cool.. my wife is 6 months pregnant with our first. Exciting times. Though she is a little down at the moment as our cat Senor Couscous got run over in front of us on sunday night.

As for the science personalities.... your right. They don't really tend to make the best media personalities.. but then neither do politicians and sports people... but that doesn't stop them getting plenty of airtime. When was the last time you heard an inspiring speech from an NFL player. Doesn't stop them getting their 30 secs of... "Well the team just gave 110%. We just go out there and play and they do to and the best team on the day goes home with the prize.. etc etc"

Surely your average scientist could be as interesting as that.. given an impassioned reporter. Most sports commentators really know their stuff so they can get something out of the interview. Most science reporters are there cause they missed the foreign correspondants job they really wanted and it was a step up from reporting on a pig stuck down a well (well maybe a step across anyway) ... how are you supposed to get a good interview from that.

They are expecting?

If they are, I think PM is going to need to lie down. :p

Oh... just the rest comment made me think they must be preparing for the lack of sleep to come post baby..

Guess once your wife is full with child its tough to think about much else ..lol

They are expecting? Cool.. my wife is 6 months pregnant with our first. Exciting times. Though she is a little down at the moment as our cat Senor Couscous got run over in front of us on sunday night.

As for the science personalities.... your right. They don't really tend to make the best media personalities.. but then neither do politicians and sports people... but that doesn't stop them getting plenty of airtime. When was the last time you heard an inspiring speech from an NFL player. Doesn't stop them getting their 30 secs of... "Well the team just gave 110%. We just go out there and play and they do to and the best team on the day goes home with the prize.. etc etc"

Surely your average scientist could be as interesting as that.. given an impassioned reporter. Most sports commentators really know their stuff so they can get something out of the interview. Most science reporters are there cause they missed the foreign correspondants job they really wanted and it was a step up from reporting on a pig stuck down a well (well maybe a step across anyway) ... how are you supposed to get a good interview from that.

I don't think they are, I just threw that in to rattle their cage.

Yes, you're right, I sigh every time a sports figure comes on camera. Just once I'd like to hear, "Yeah, we beat the crap out of them, they really stank on ice today." And politicians, yes, well, for some reason people seem to think they have something to say, even though every time they open their mouths all you get are platitudes.

It is too bad, honestly, that we can't better popular science reporting. Nova does a good job, and occasionally the Discovery Channel. I myself have been taking Scientific American for the last 25 years and what's a little scary is, I'm beginning to get it, things are starting to make sense. Ah, well.

If they are, I think PM is going to need to lie down. :p

:eek: news to me!! ;)

Edit: Oh, and scientists are boring, let's face it. They really don't come across well in a two minute segment. Of course, if they discovered a planet of Britney Spears look-alikes, that might get more attention, but what are the chances?

Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics (http://britneyspears.ac/lasers.htm)

http://britneyspears.ac/images/bs2.jpg