Category Archives: science in the media

gaming, media, science fiction, science in the media

A Storm Trooper, a Na’vi and Mark Twain

4 Comments

Walk into a Mexican Restaurant…

No, this isn’t the start of a bad science fiction joke. It’s what I saw this past weekend at StarFest, a convention put on each year by StarLand.com.  I was a guest speaker on Saturday, and my talk was about Hubble Space Telescope science. I’ve given talks at StarFest (and its former sibling conference StarCon), and at WorldCon and Shore Leave and other conferences over the years. They’re always a lot of fun and the audiences are always very receptive.  This one was no exception — I was very happy to have a standing-room-only crowd, some in costume (which is always fun). And mind you, I am a Trekkie from WAY back, so I can appreciate the frame of mind in which conference-goers attend. The very first con I ever talked at (back when I was in graduate school), I was greeted by a whole troop of fully battle-clad Klingons in the front row — and I was happy to report that they did NOT hurl bat’leths at me at the end of the talk!

Now, it’s a no-brainer that astronomy and science talks might be welcome at a sci-fi/star trek/anime/gaming/you-name-it kind of convention.  There’s a certain passion that folks who are into these things also bring to the rest of their outlook on life.  They tend to be curious and intelligent and open-minded and open to new ideas and directions of discussion.  So, at such a con, it’s easy to find yourself in a conversation with a kid dressed as Harry Potter, passionately defending the idea that we should go to the Moon before we go to Mars.  Or, you find yourself chatting about NASA’s budget with (as I did) an older gentleman dressed in full steampunk.  Or, you end up in a conversation with a movie star (as I als0 did) about astrology and astronomy, and her boyfriend joining in with questions about life on other worlds.  There’s a wonderful art room, with everything from paintings and pottery to original fan-based art for all the genres. It’s coordinated by our friend Tim Kuzniar of Autumn Star science fiction, fantasy, and space art. And the dealer’s room is an amazing sight. Among the booths for belly dancing jewelry, carved dragons, and science fiction movies and books and gamers I found like-minded souls who share a sense of what’s out there, what’s to be discovered, and what piques our curiosity.

A Na'vi at Starfest. Copyright 2010, C.C. Petersen.

So, it’s a great place to experience all the artistic influences that are related in some way to space, to astronomy, to exploration… to the flights of fantasy and imagination that can give us races like Na’vi, the quaint but forward-looking writing of Mark Twain, and the power and backstory that an Empire Storm Trooper represents. Not to mention all the folks in Star Trek uniforms, Batman outfits, dressed as robots, the Terminator, animals, Na’vi, and even Charlie the Unicorn.

About the folks in the title at the top? Our friend Tim spotted them before dinner and I saw them after dinner.  I didn’t have my camera handy to catch the three of them together, although I caught this Na’vi (at left) an hour or so later after the costume contest. But, the vision  of the three of together  is in my memory — and I like the mix of metaphors, times, and ideas that bring together three people who can attend the same meeting, dressed as creatures from very different times and idea-spheres, and find common ground in a Mexican food joint.  That’s the beauty of mixing science and culture — the hybrid that is born brings you scenes like that one.  And, I look forward to going again next year, presenting a talk, and talking to whoever– and whatever — shows up!

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.