Category Archives: media

media, science in the media, science media

This New Media Thing

1 Comment

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.

astronomy, media

High Drama in the Cosmos

1 Comment

Swooping through the Universe

on the National Geographic Channel

A still from an animated scene of magnetic loops on the Sun. Courtesy National Geographic.
A still from an animated scene of magnetic loops on the Sun. Courtesy National Geographic.

I just got through watching a preview copy of a program called Journey to the Edge of the Universe that is set to show on National Geographic Channel this coming Sunday night (December 7). It is written and produced by British science popularizer Nigel Henbest, who has spent many years doing books and articles, and producing TV shows about space science and astronomy.

Journey is a visually dramatic program about the exploration of the universe — from Earth out to the limits of the observable cosmos. The script kind of plays with the viewer’s emotions by suggesting the idea that the universe is a dangerous, frightening place — but yet one that we must explore.

That’s perhaps a bit too much drama for my own tastes, because the scientist in me says that black holes and other cosmic exotica aren’t scary–even though they are dangerous.

However, there’s no question that the producers are exploring dramatically active places and events that most people don’t get to see every day, so perhaps a bit of the hyperbole can be understood as an effort to really excite people about such amazing places as Mars and Europa and starbirth regions and galactic cores and quasars and black holes. The visualization of all these places alone is worth the watching, and it’s coupled with a narration by actor Alec Baldwin that sets a nice counterpoint. He brings a very warm and calm delivery to the program.

What I really found intriguing was the visual production of the show. One of the visual goals of the program was to make a single, epic camera move from Earth out to the observable limits of the cosmos. Now, as one-half of a producing pair (my husband and I create science documentaries for fulldome video), I can truly appreciate the magnitude of the effort this program took. It’s all CGI (computer animation) with the exception of a scene at the beginning, shot on a beach. From there, the show leaps out to an exploration of the planets, our Sun, our galaxy, starbirth and stardeath regions, quasars, black holes, and the Big Bang itself. And, it does all this in one long, twisting, winding, bouncing, spinning, traveling camera move, using visuals created by a highly talented group of animators in Canada and Britain.

Nigel Henbest wrote in a blog entry on the NatGeo site about a common challenge that all of us who produce about space face:  whether to try and weave together animations of celestial objects and events with the still imagery produced by NASA and the world’s observatories and space agencies. It’s a tough call because it costs a LOT of money and time to recreate science images as full animation sequences. At some point, you find yourself asking: why can’t we just use the stills and do camera moves on them?  It’s a stylistic and story-telling decision, and it’s really guided by the goals of the production. In the end, the production team decided to go with full animation and make what they created look as close as possible to what astronomers and astrovisualizers have created in the “official” images we see from NASA and other facilities.

Suffice to say, in many places in the show, the visualization effort is quite stunning — such as the sequence where we fly over the Sun and explore huge, towering prominences and magnetic loops. That part intrigued me because I’m currently working on a space weather project and being able to show people how those magnetic loops do their thing is a challenge!

There are a few nods here and there in the show to popular culture (mentions of Star Trek, for example), and one or two deft and subtle tributes to the late Carl Sagan (who died 12 years ago this month) and his outstanding work on the Cosmos series that started many of us on our own paths to documentary writing and production. Aside from a few nits that I picked at while watching the show (such as the title; there’s really not an “edge” to the universe so you can’t exactly go “to” that edge, and a sort of off-the-wall suggestion that perhaps squid could survive on Europa), I found this swoop through the cosmos intriguing, both as a documentary and as an example of one of the many different ways that those of us who write and produce about science do our jobs!