Category Archives: science media

Science, the Media, and Future Trips to Mars

Being a Science Communicator

media word cloudI’m a science communicator and  also worked as a scientist for part of my career. The ways that science gets communicated continue to amaze me. I got so fascinated science communication that I spent part of my graduate school career studying more effective ways to share the discoveries and processes of science with the public. It took me in some interesting directions. Today, I give talks, write books and documentary shows, and  articles for online sources, and do podcasts and online videos for clients. Aside from the book and article writing, which are more traditional forms of media, the other ways I share science are methods I never dreamed would exist when I started writing.

How We Learn about the World Around Us

Media and science are ways that humans employ to learn about the universe. The way we see science is influenced by how  media reports it. Some of my research focused on negative views of science in the media, and how media comes by those views (rightly or wrongly). In an ideal world, the two would work together. In reality, sometimes that happens. Sometimes it doesn’t.

Last week I was in Boston for a science media awards event called SMASH (Science Media Awards Summit in the Hub). I was a judge for the science media pieces submitted to this festival. The “job” was to watch a set of media pieces (in my case, about earth and space) and judge each one on technical and scientific merits. It’s the second time I’ve judged for this group and each time I learn something new about the craft of communicating science.

The Summit also included sessions focused on how we as scientists and science communicators can do (or have done) our jobs. It was good professional development experience for me. I had a chance to meet and talk with people whose work I have respected for a long time. While we discussed journalism and science communication and the requirements that each places on its practitioners, we didn’t focus a LOT on scientific accuracy in reporting. I wish we could have, but the sessions we DID experience were quite fulfilling on their own. Perhaps next time we can have a session.

Accuracy in Media

For me, getting a story as accurate as I can (within the constraints of time and budget) is important. In the videos I judged, most paid attention to accuracy. There were a few instances where the producers allowed dramatic needs to overpower accuracy. That’s a common failing from documentaries to blockbuster entertainment. People don’t expect precision accuracy in a sci-fi action-adventure flick (although the producers should know that the Kessel Run isnt’ done in 12 parsecs by now). However, we do have a certain level of expectation for accuracy in a documentary. One piece that I didn’t judge, but have seen before, had some egregious errors in it. I found myself wondering how those mistakes slipped through script and visuals review.

Accuracy is Crucial

Accuracy is important when you’re trying to convey some sense of a scientific discovery or a process to people who aren’t familiar with it. Of course, science discovery is a continual process. One finding may clarify or even change a previous one. Scientists know this, and media practitioners should also know it. When I write about Mars, for example, I know that what one mission may uncover will certainly be clarified and expanded by the next one. One big story on Mars is the search for water. Decades ago, we simply referred to Mars as a desert, with all the connotations that word has. Today, although we know Mars certainly doesn’t have the same volume of water as Earth does, we know that it has more than we used to assume it had. Our knowledge changed with the discoveries made by robotic missions. By the time people actually get to Mars to study it first-hand, the Mars water story will change a few more times. And that’s fine. That anticipation of new discoveries actually excites curiosity among scientists AND the public.

Media Focus

Which brings me to the recent Elon Musk Mars mission announcement. It is certainly being hyped in the media, and rightly so. He and his team are laying out an ambitious mission plan with some near-future goals. Whether all that Mr. Musk wants to do CAN be done in the timeline he suggests is something that only he and the engineers can determine. But, I like the fact that he’s saying something, putting a timeline out, and laying plans. It’s important to do that. He’s not the first, but he’s doing it at a time when the drumbeat for human missions to Mars is getting louder. These things go in cycles, so he’s right to catch onto the cycle as it rises to its peak.

In reporting on Musk’s announcement, the media would do well to look at how people planned Mars missions in the past. In the 1980s, I attended and participated in meetings called “Case for Mars”.  Folks representing institutions from universities and NASA and the aerospace industry  and the science media laid out plans to send humans to Mars. Many of those plans look a LOT like what Mr. Musk and others have come up more recently  There are only so many ways to get people to Mars, all of them audacious and risky. We knew that a long time ago, and it’s still true today.

Media Direction

What I’d like to see the media do now is trace the timeline of Mars mission planning and notice what flowed from the meetings we had in the 80s and beyond. It’s not a new idea to go to Mars. What’s new NOW is that someone is staking his company’s future on it. In the past, countries and agencies did that. Mr. Musk is now moving the plans beyond the realm of speculation and hope. It’s a risky thing to do, audacious and bold. I hope the media will see that.

This New Media Thing

Science Reporting and the Paradigm Shift in Media

So, my previous entry stirred up a little hornet’s nest of interest and discussion (in comments and also at our hacienda) about new media and science reporting. I think there’s an awful lot of attention being paid to the term “new media” by “old media”, with the particular concern being voiced of “what’s going to happen to old media?” Is there a paradigm shift? If so, what’s it going to do for science media?

The essence of reporting news hasn’t changed in all the years that “media” has existed. In the beginning — back in the first days of town criers and then broadsheets, it was “the news of the day.”  That hasn’t changed over the centuries and it’s still true today. People do stuff, other people tell other people about it.

What IS changing is the strict old model of “one to many” where the newspaper or TV news was the sole source of news and everybody watched that “one” source.  Today, we have many sources and they’re not all professional newsgathering organizations.  There’s a value in having professional newsgatherers round up the news and put it all in one place — don’t get me wrong on that.  What I am finding more disappointing these days is that the decision-makers at the mainstream media outlets are decidering that news about dysfunctional political families in Alaska or someone’s clothing merits constant coverage. News happens 24/7. There’s lots of it. So, why do we keep seeing the same stories on the front page of CNN (for example) for several days running?  Is that all they have on the spindle?  They do a fine job of covering breaking news, but they leave up other news stories to rot on the vine while good stuff goes unreported.  That is a failing — and not just of CNN (I just pick on them because they are a popular source from which people get their news).  Space on page 1 (or its equivalent) is at a premium in media organizations, and so the editors and deciderers must figure out what to cover on the front and what to let run elsewhere. It’s not an easy job.

When it comes to science coverage, newspapers and TV have always had an uneasy relationship with the subject.  When I went to J school for my masters’ and talked to an advisor about strengthening my science reporting skills, the response was “Why do you want to study that geeky sh*t?”  This from a former political reporter who spent years covering some really nasty sh*t from politicians.  But, of course, political sh*t bleeds… and it leads.  Science doesn’t bleed — unless, of course, you can find some story about a mutant or whatever and write about that. Then, it might lead, but only below the fold and not always on page 1.  And, of course, there’s what we call “pretty picture” coverage (similar to the “awwww…” picture of a kitty, puppy, or baby that every news desk editor worth his or her salt would keep to plug an errant news hole).

But, science is still held (in the mainstream media) as this sort of weird subject that you have to be a rocket scientist to cover and understand. There was (and still is) a very solid cadre of science reporters (we’re a group growing smaller though) who knew their stuff and would show up at press conferences asking questions that were quite incisive.  Many of us have science backgrounds and we have specialized in science writing. It required a bit more knowledge — and if you want to have good coverage in any section of news, you send someone who can talk the language (i.e. business reporters for business, sports writers for sports, etc.).   I don’t think that’s going to change in the “new media” world. What is changing is the vehicle for our reporting and the avenues through which our work is available. Hence podcasts, vodcasts, blogs, and other media vehicles created by those of us who know our science and know how to write and produce about it.

The value of “new media” in the shape of podcasts, vodcasts, twitter account, and other ways that news filters out on the Web is that the accessibility of the Web allows for a number of different voices to make their stories heard. If you follow the Carnival of Space every week, you probably already know of the many different sites (including this one) where you can get news and discussion about astronomy and space science news. If you listen to 365 Days  of Astronomy, you are getting background info on astronomy and space science, sometimes from folks doing the actual work — a sort of “one on one”  interview with a newsmaker, unfiltered by a media presence. You can surf around to the Web sites of every major observatory and space agency in the world and find out the latest. You can read people like me writing about that science being done, adding our own insights (from experience) to the news stories.

I can see where this would be scary to “old media” types who have relied on the old ways of doing things. And, it’s understandable. But, change is part of the media.  Back in the days when newspapers ruled the roost at the beginning of the 20th century, the invention of radio was frightening to newspaper folks–until they figured out ways to either buy radio stations or work with them. When TV came along, radio felt threatened–until radio and TV networks banded together. Networks felt threatened by the cable industry.  And everybody is feeling threatened by the Web and Internet and “new media”.   How we get our news is changing, and the gatekeeper model is shifting, possibly out of existence — or to a new shape.  Gatekeeping is not bad — there is a sense that not every story is (or should be) reported for good reasons.  That is what fuels the power of the media in all the models.

I’m intrigued to see where media goes — and how the mainstream media will eventually evolve.  It will have to change and stop clinging to old delivery and business models.  Science coverage may benefit from this because at last those of us who write about it can make our own vehicles for delivery.