[X] My Assistant

[Stu]

... do I have to email papers and TV shows to point out what cretins they employ?

From today's Daily Mail WEEKEND tv listings for Sunday night...

THE SKY AT NIGHT

Patrick Moore marks
50 years of the
astrological observation
program.



Firstly, that's SIR Patrick Moore to you...

And secondly, astrological..? ASTROLOGICAL?!?!?!?! Isn't it about time this simple mistake was banished?!?! What, have they got 5yr olds writing for them?!?!

Still, this is the paper that gives pages and pages over to astrologer Jonathan Cainer, who recently claimed that Comet McNaught would lead to world revolution and last year suggested to his readers that they could see Saturn's rings and Jupiter's Great Red Spot through binoculars, and suggested via artwork that they should scan the sky for Mercury while the Sun was still above the horizon, so why am I surprised..?

(shakes head in disbelief)

[nprev]

(Sigh)...Well, Stu, if it's any comfort, at least there seems to be some media coverage of astronomical matters in the UK, however inaccurate it may be. Over here in the US it's as rare as hen's teeth; most people here think that you need a telescope to see a planet at all, never occurs to them that the classical ones are naked-eye visible...

Still, you're right. Unforgiveable that astrology & astronomy should be confused in this day & age...can't tell you how many people have asked me about "astrology" once they know I own a telescope. BTW, this includes people who actually build and launch satellites for a living, which I find appalling. (Oops; my swear jar just exploded, gotta go!!!)

[djellison]

most people here think that you need a telescope to see a planet at all, never occurs to them that the classical ones are naked-eye visible...

Exactly the same here, without fail.

Doug

[CosmicRocker]

Hehe. Sometimes you've got to wonder how our species ever discovered the other planets in the first place.

I'd guess people were less distracted by trivia in the past, but there really is no defense for people in this day and age who are so unaware of our place in the universe. It is even more frightening to notice that the flocks of the unaware somehow seem to be drawn into positions with the media.

[nprev]

The larger issue really is science-phobia, which now seems endemic to the entire Western culture. There are too many negative stereotypes about science out there: science is "hard", scientists are "geeks", to name a few.

Populists like the late, great Carl Sagan and the inestimable Sir Patrick Moore have done much to de-mystify the general public, but clearly more is needed. Now, if we can just talk Doug into making UMSF a TV show, we're on to something...

[djellison]

I'd make it. Just need

1. Money.
2. A TV station to air it.
3. Money

Doug

[nprev]

How about "The Planetary Society presents Unmanned Spaceflight", sponsored by several leading aerospace companies who love to build probes?

You could have notable guest stars such as <ahem> me, performing my rap on Titan's surface chemistry...they'll laugh, they'll cry, they'll turn off their TVs in utter disgust...

Seriously, though. You could do an entire episode for each successful mission at least (Cassini & the MERs are worth several, though), take people through the whole magnificent thing & leave them wanting more...this could work, man. This is a story that needs to be told for the ages.

[paxdan]

Screw TV. Why not do it as a daily 2 min, or weekly 10 min video podcast. Did you buy that mac for your shed/office in the end? 'cos it will come with all the software you need to edit a short program and the built-in iSight camera is plenty good enough for web casts.

[dvandorn]

Let's see -- in order:

nprev: I entirely agree. I grew up in an America that had just been outrageously shown up as no better than second in the world in science and engineering, and I watched that America respond to the challenge by growing a *huge* crop of engineers and scientists.

I then watched that self-same America send a majority of those engineers and scientists onto the dole when we, as a nation, proved we were "Number One" and felt comfortable with our place in the world again.

The message was clear: don't fall for the ruse, don't work hard and become a scientist or engineer, 'cause your country will abandon a lot of you. And your dreams.

And, I have to admit, a lot of the scientists who *do* eke out a living don't make the situation any better when they try to bill themselves as "wizards" who are so much more capable and intelligent than anyone else that they can't be bothered even trying to *discuss* their findings with the common scum people. It seems that for every Carl Sagan and Steve Squyres, you have five or ten other guys out there who, when asked what their work means, start out every attempt at explanation with "Well, of course, you won't *really* be able to understand this, but..."


paxdan: While there are a lot of positives in re webcasting, the fact is that webcasts are the ultimate in narrowcasting. You only see and/or hear them if you already have an interest and have spent some effort to find them.

While an increasing number of people are using the Internet as their primary source of news and information, the vast majority still use TV, radio and even *gasp* newspapers as their primary news/information sources. Those mass-media sources (especially TV and radio) don't require nearly as much work on the part of the individual as using the Internet (at least at present). You just select the channels that make you feel the best about yourself and the world and let them feed you the reality *they* choose to show you.

Unfortunately, it is still very true that Western culture is defined and in a sense created by the mass media. The influence of narrowcasting is increasing, but it's still not nearly as pervasive as mass media are.

So, while narrowcasting is not a bad thing, it's the *mass media* that need to have their standards raised in re science and space reporting. Heck, they need to raise the bar across the board, IMHO, but I don't want to get into *that* discussion here...

I would just like to see the mass media put into place enough real experts in the sciences to fact-check their reporting before tossing out these little gems. Have some kind of evaluation process, independent of the broadcasters -- if a given network, or station, or magazine or newspaper is found to be inaccurate over and above a certain level, it loses some kind of important rating. Or has to run a subtitle or page footer saying "our reporting is only 63% accurate, on average" or somesuch.

If you don't have any consequences for doing a poor job, you just let the least capable amongst us set the bar for everyone. That applies even moreso to the mass media.

Just my $.02...

-the other Doug

[djellison]

Why not do it as a daily 2 min, or weekly 10 min video podcast.

Knowing the realities of video editing etc - the research, writing, recording, re-recording, editing and uploading of 2 mins - would take an hour, easily. If I had a spare hour - it wouldn't be my best way of spending it.

Doug

[edstrick]

"...I would just like to see the mass media put into place enough real experts in the sciences to fact-check their reporting before tossing out these little gems...."

Somewhere, on reel-to-reel audio tape from the mid 70's, I probably have a direct blanket statement (my memory says NBC newsanchor David Brinkley, but I may be wrong), that the Soviet Union was never ever in a race with America to land men on the moon. They had bought the Soviet post-Apollo propaganda, line, hook and sinker.

[nprev]

As Dvandorn points out, science has a huge PR problem that in some ways is self-inflicted. I haven't personally ever dealt with a PhD that was actually arrogant, but I've met plenty that just can't communicate effectively, which only reinforces negative stereotypes. The Carl Sagans & Steve Squyres are rare birds indeed, which is a damn shame.

EDIT: Whups, forgot to mention Alan Stern, a PI that clearly understands that interfacing with the public is crucial for his project.

[dvandorn]

EDIT: Whups, forgot to mention Alan Stern, a PI that clearly understands that interfacing with the public is crucial for his project.

Drat! So did I! Apologies, Alan -- you are definitely one of the *good* ones!



-the other Doug