[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)

[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