If It Bleeds, It Leads
Otherwise, Not so Much
Over the past couple of days, millions of people around the world have peaceably come together in person and on the internet to celebrate astronomy. They have been going to star parties in their home towns, viewing objects online through linked telescopes, touring of the world’s observatories, and doing many other activities that people have come out for and enjoyed.
Did you read about this in the press? See anything about it on CNN.com or MSNBC or al-Jazeera, or the Beeb or any of the other “big” online news presences? I’m guessing not, although there have been stories in local newspapers and, of course, in the blogosphere. If you relied only on the “mainstream” media, you’d never know that this is the International Year of Astronomy, or that astronomy is one of those sciences that hooks into people’s sense of awe and wonder about the universe. It’s a GOOD thing, but it doesn’t bleed. So, it doesn’t lead. Or if it does lead, it’s because some editor somewhere thought it was time for a “weird” story.
It appears that the “mainstream” media has pretty much abdicated any kind of serious science reporting these days, leaving it for — well, I dunno, people like me, to cover science or science-related stories. What passes for “science’ media these days is a kind of techy-business-driven commentary about the latest apps for iPhones or some new medical finding. Occasionally you see stories about Antarctica melting or a new picture from HST, but that’s pretty much it. There’s very little concerted reporting (on a daily basis) about science for its own sake. And, heaven forfend anybody write about the interest that millions of people have in astronomy on a weekend when an official, world-wide event ABOUT astronomy is taking place. “What?” I can hear a bunch of editors asking, “Spend news time on a bunch of geeks? Are they nekkid? Protesting? what’s that you say? They’re looking through telescopes and having a great time and sharing what they see with other people around the world? No news there.. .who cares?”
This means that YOU as a taxpayer, an interested person, an armchair scientist of some kind, lose out on a very fascinating part of what other people are doing to understand our world.
So, what exactly is the news media focusing on? Not science. Not even close.
Let’s take a look at a typical example — CNN.com. I went over and perused their front page today. Aside from the necessary headlines of the day (the New York state murders, the North Korean rocket launch), some stories there have been there for several days running. Do we really need three days of incessant analysis of Michelle Obama’s J. Crew sweater? Do we need to see the same losing politicians and think-tankers bloviating about banking policy? How many times can we read the story about the teenager who made a duct-tape prom dress?
I clicked on the Science/Tech link and got a story about biodegradable chewing gum that’s been up for a few days; another one about the return of the right whale (yay), more stories about Mt. Redoubt, and NOTHING about millions of people celebrating 100 Hours of Astronomy. If millions of people had, say, decided to not pay their taxes or march on a country’s capital (or better yet, from a newsmedia standpoint, get in a riot and spill some blood), then THAT would be news.
But somehow, the idea that that many people could get together and enjoy science just doesn’t resonate with the media. So, I kind of wonder — and mind you, I’m a trained journalist and have a science research background — just exactly what good is the “mainstream” media if it’s not covering stuff that millions of people do? If it’s not even giving a perfunctory note about something as wonderful as a world full of people celebrating astronomy? Science is part of our lives, but you wouldn’t know it from the lack of coverage of something as cool as ordinary people joining with each other to look at the sky and learn.
Obviously this has been coming for a while. In some sense it is the fault of scientists for becoming too political. Once they started ‘framing’ science issues they made their science political footballs. That made science in media less about science too. And the other sense is that readers of science/tech are also ‘thought leaders’ – they adopted new ways of getting information and simply left old media behind.
The plain fact is, no one is going to miss the mostly bad science journalism done in the mainstream media except some unemployed science journalists. The good ones will always have jobs.
Unlike most scientists, I do not think they are bad (much less that they are the enemy, like far too many scientists do) and I think they care a ton about science (as do you and I) … I instead think of them the way I think of elevator operators; they will still make sense in high-end places and they will be nicely quaint when we visit but for most people who know how to get where they are going and can press their own buttons, they are no longer needed.
We have a million people a month reading about science and there are a bunch of science sites bigger than us. The science audience is bigger than ever. It isn’t their fault that the mainstream media would rather engage in good works political evangelizing than informing people about science.
Comment by Hank — April 6, 2009 #
Hi there,
I don’t disagree with you on substance — but I do have to question your pejoratives about science and politics as well as bad unemployed science journalists. A good number of very good science journalists are unemployed because their mainstream media bosses didn’t think science important enough to keep a trained professional on staff. I’ve been a science journalist a number of years and I’ve honed my talents, learned my science, and kept up with it. Others I know did the same — only to see their jobs cut while things like sports and fashion continue unabated in newspaper column inches.
As for science and politics — well, science and politics go hand in hand. They always have and always will. And a scientist doesn’t lose his or her right to have political opinions simply because they do science. Scientists may well have had no other choice than to GET political in order to get the funding from their respective governments to do science.
I actually had the chance to be a journalist before I actually was “trained” to be one (j-school, etc.) and so got a good feel for what stories led and what didn’t — among readers. I couldn’t have cared less about what my editors wanted, except that they paid the bills, so I found myself doing odd stories that THEY thought were about science, but really weren’t. That’s the sort of science “journalism” I used to cringe at. But now, that’s about all we get.
Once I got to j-school and was working on my master’s degree, I was appalled at how often “theory” didn’t fit reality in journalism. And, management’s theories about journalism are never what academic journalism’s are. If j-schools and journalism are to survive, they WILL have to figure out a couple of things: 1) what delivering news really means, and 2) how to do it with changing technology. Just because print journalism has been around a long time (and has been fed by the dictum “he who owns the newspaper decides the news” (also true for video)) doesn’t mean that it has to be this way all the time. I do understand the advertising-led model of keeping a newspaper alive, but even that model can be tweaked and refined. It can evolve. The fact that we see crap happening like what’s occurring at the Boston Globe right now is a tribute to the desire of the owners to maintain status quo in a changing world. It is a battle they will lose. And, in the meantime, the public will turn to other sources of news.
I have a particular fondness for blogging science news because it suits me to cover material that would never make it to the mainstream media. I can frame the stories so that people can understand them, so that scientists aren’t portrayed as geeks, loners, weirdos and other things that MSM loves to employ when talking about scientists. I can get political in my discussions — and I often get mocked for that, as if politics and science are separate. I’d never have that freedom to do it in a newspaper setting.
We owe a debt of gratitude to the days when the MSM did cover science more, but it’s dropped the ball. And in the process of dropping the ball on so many levels, it is losing its prominent place in the public square. And perhaps it deserves to.
In closing, I wish I had your million people — I have a healthy following and would love to attract more financial support. I DO in many senses understand that this new media is important, but those of us who work in it now have to pay the bills, too. There are downsides to all of it, but the upside here is that I get to bring the science stories that fascinate people to their eyes and ears.
Comment by ccp — April 6, 2009 #
Face it, the media that don’t have a political agenda, do have an economic one. Never mind the responsibility of the appearance of being “fair and objective”, they just want ratings. And a bunch of geeky
Science types and wannabes just isn’t news. Even tho it that very same segment that will end up having to save their butts one day.
Comment by Jamie Rich — April 6, 2009 #
See my response to the previous poster — the media have always had an economic agenda and a political one — it just depends on whose side of the fence you’re on as to whether that’s good or not. It costs money to pay people to gather news and write. Some of us are trained well, and that cost money, too. Should we do it for free? There’s never been a perfect model for this — the history of media is fraught with abuses by owners, writers, politicians — you name it. The “new media” model is interesting, but news doesn’t come free. You can browse lots of stuff for “free” now, but will that hold up? People who do this work deserve to earn a living. Media corporate giants depend on this.
Comment by ccp — April 6, 2009 #
This article has been added to the Astronomy Link List.
Comment by Astronomy Link List — April 6, 2009 #
“…just exactly what good is the “mainstream” media if it’s not covering stuff that millions of people do…”
What you point out is one more symptom of the degeneracy of the mainstream US press.
Comment by changcho — April 9, 2009 #
And you base this strange charge of “degeneracy” on what expertise? experience? Do tell?
Did you read what I wrote? I pointed out CNN, but the problems were also evident on BEEB and other international sites I went to — it wasn’t limited to U.S. sites.
I did not say the press is degenerate. I said it has its failings. There’s a distinct difference, one that you should learn before you fling out terms like that.
Comment by ccp — April 9, 2009 #