STRATEGISTS <----> JOURNALISTS <----> PUBLICS
Matthew C. Nisbet, Ph.D, is a professor in the School of Communication at American University where his research focuses on the intersections between science, media, and politics. E-MAIL: nisbetmc@gmail.com
July 3, 2008
Category: Blogging/New Media
Wikio has its latest rankings out, tracking the most influential blogs about science (as well as many other categories.)
Framing Science has pushed up from the top 25 blogs about science to break into the top 15, based on number and influence of links to the site.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 12:29 PM • 2 Comments • View blog reactions
Category: Global Warming
Barbara Boxer appeared on Bill Moyers last week, providing fresh insight into her relationship with James Inhofe as well as the strategic appeal that turned GOP Senator John Warner into a climate change advocate.
In describing her reaction to Inhofe's theatrics during Al Gore's testimony earlier this year, here's what she had to say (full transcript of the interview):
BARBARA BOXER: I was a little stunned because here I had taken the gavel after a tough, you know, election season. We came in. We got power finally, albeit very small margin. But I was the chairman of the committee now. And Jim Inhofe, we work pretty well together, given our ideological differences. But he kept trying to run the hearings. And I kept saying to myself at some point I'm going to have to show him that I am the chairman of the committee.
(Cut to actual transcript from Gore's testimony)BARBARA BOXER:Would you agree to let the Vice President answer your questions? And then, if you want an extra few minutes at the end, I'm happy to give it to you. But we're not going to get anywhere --
SEN. JAMES INHOFE: Why don't we do this? Why don't we do this? At the end, you can have as much time as you want to answer all the questions.
BARBARA BOXER: No, that isn't the rule of -- you're not making the rules. You used to when you did this. You don't do this anymore. Elections have consequences.
BARBARA BOXER: What I meant is that times have changed now. And the Democrats are in charge. And this committee, what it means is that the environment is back, front and center.
On staunch GOP leader John Warner, she notes that when climate change was re-framed for the Virginia Senator as a national security matter, it connected the issue to something that Warner was already an advocate on and something that he cared about as a legislative leader.
It's a leading example of what can happen when climate change is switched from the mental box of just an environmental issue and recast for Republicans as either a national security issue or as an opportunity to grow the economy around innovation and new technology. With this type of re-framing, support can be activated among an otherwise demobilized audience. Indeed, it's no accident that the bill that was introduced was named "The Climate Security Act."
Here's how Boxer recounts Warner's conversion to the issue.
BARBARA BOXER: Actually, I think we did better than I thought and there's a reason, a man named John Warner. And for anyone who says, you know, individuals don't matter, the government goes on, individuals matter.BARBARA BOXER: Now, John Warner is a Republican. And by any measure, a conservative Republican, a man who's retiring now and who has made his mark on national security.
(Cut to Warner speaking on the Senate floor.)SEN. JOHN WARNER: Let's show the American public this institution can work and address a complicated subject and try and reach a common ground and common understanding. To do nothing is not an option.BARBARA BOXER: When he came to realize that global warming was a national security issue and when his kids and grandkids said to him, "You need to have a legacy on this issue," and he then came to me, I knew we had brought bipartisanship to the committee.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 12:00 PM • 2 Comments • View blog reactions
Category: Framing Science
Chris Mooney has this Science Progress column up reviewing the seminar we conducted last week at Cal Tech. As he puts it, science needs a "paradigm sheep." Read on, it all makes sense. Trust me.
In the meantime, we are looking to take the seminar on the road to other leading universities and research institutions. We hope to have announcements about some Fall dates and locations very soon.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 11:50 AM • 0 Comments • View blog reactions
June 28, 2008
Category: Global Warming
As I've argued before, conservatives often have the advantage in elections and policy battles because of their tendency to enforce greater message discipline and coordination. The latest example is James Inhofe who for a decade has been perhaps the most visible and loudest voice of climate denial.
But now as his party's presidential nominee John McCain uses action on climate change as a way to appeal to moderates, Inhofe may very well be "laying low," letting his party leader do the talking on the issue, and refraining from what would otherwise be confusing messages about where the Republican party stands on the issue.
Appearing on NPR Science Friday (audio) with host Ira Flatow, here's how Manik Roy of the Pew Center on Climate Change and Darren Samuelsohn, Senior Reporter, E & E Publishing, described Inhofe's surprisingly low profile during the climate legislation debate earlier this month.
Mr. SAMUELSOHN: It was funny. Inhofe really took a backseat on this debate and past climate-change debates. He's been front and center on the floor, talking about the science, questioning the science, and his aides, you know, predicted a couple weeks beforehand that he wasn't going to be doing that anymore, and they kind of - they used a couple of other Republicans, as sort of the people in the front who were leading the opposition on gas prices primarily.Inhofe was at a couple of the press conferences, and you know certainly, he is well. Actually, he really didn't go after the science so much. I mean partly, that could be, you know, their presidential candidate John McCain is in a completely different position than Jim Inhofe on the science and climate change. So...
Mr. ROY: Actually, there was a funny moment when Bernie Sanders of Vermont started talking a lot about the science, and then Inhofe said, oh, it's so tempting. I want to talk about the science, but he disciplined himself...
FLATOW: Hey, he did give some figure about thousands of scientists who were in a - you know, didn't believe in it, at one point of the debate, if I remember correctly, but stretching back...
Mr. ROY: Right.
FLATOW: But he's still trying to make the public believe that, But that is a sea change, is it not? That he had probably the lone voice there.
Mr. SAMUELSOHN: Absolutely, he had some proponents of, you know, actions pointing that out quite clearly that, you know, we're no longer debating if we need to do anything. It's now we're debating how, and you know we didn't really get into a complete debate about how, but that debate did start.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 1:42 PM • 4 Comments • View blog reactions
June 27, 2008
Category: Evolution/Intelligent Design
A Gallup survey out this week reveals a wide partisan gap in perceptions of evolution. Specifically, 60% of Republicans say humans were created in their present form by God 10,000 years ago, a belief shared by only 40% of independents and 38% of Democrats.
These Gallup findings are the latest to underscore an emerging partisan divide on controversial areas of science. With many prominent Republicans continuing to dispute climate change, Democrats in recent elections making stem cell research part of their campaign strategy, GOP primary candidates openly doubting evolution, and Hillary Clinton promising to end Bush's "war on science," these issues have become part of America's partisan DNA.
In other words, it's very easy for citizens to convert climate change, stem cell research, or evolution into just one more wedge issue like abortion, taxes, or gun control that help define what it means to be a Republican or Democrat. The political packaging of science for electoral gain is the unfortunate outcome of a lot of different forces, with both Republican and Democratic leaders to blame.
Incidentally, the Gallup survey results also help indirectly shed light on how many non-religious, agnostic, or atheistic American adults might be out there. Consider the graph below, that shows that the proportion of Americans who believe that evolution has occurred with God playing no part has edged up slightly over the past 15 years to roughly 14%. This figure compares favorably to data from a recent Pew report that measures roughly 16% of Americans as saying that they are "religiously unaffiliated."
It's likely, however, that these figures over-estimate the number of truly non-believing Americans who might be out there. Pew reports that among the 16% saying they are unaffiliated, that a large portion (41%) say religion is at least somewhat important in their lives, seven-in-ten say they believe in God, and more than a quarter (27%) say they attend religious services at least a few times a year.
Among all adults, according to Pew, roughly seven-in-ten say they are absolutely certain of God's existence, with slightly more than one-in-five (22%) less certain in their belief.
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 4:23 PM • 8 Comments • View blog reactions
Category: Framing Science
I'm back in DC after a week long tour of southern California. On Monday night, an audience of close to 100 scientists, students, and staff turned out at Cal Tech for our latest Framing Science lecture. We followed on Tuesday with a day long science communication seminar (syllabus) that included 30 PhD students, post-docs, and Cal Tech staff. (Read one blogger's summary.)
I ended my morning session by posing the following issues and questions to the participants, with these issues arising from what I see as major changes in the political and media system that are generating new demands for scientists and their institutions as public communicators.
As I've noted at this blog many times and outlined in a talk last week at the BIO 2008 meetings, what are needed are novel forms of public dialogue complemented by media strategies that are informed by careful audience research.
Yet these initiatives raise several important questions. Namely:
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 3:36 PM • 1 Comments • View blog reactions
Category: Blogging/New Media
On TV, Neil deGrasse Tyson uses narrative to dramatize the importance of basic research.
Last week in San Diego, I participated on a panel at the BIO 2008 meetings that focused on the communication challenges facing the biotech industry. Organized by Richard Gallagher, editor of The Scientist magazine, a major topic of discussion were the challenges that industry faces in communicating the value of basic research. In fact, this was also a major topic at the Cal Tech seminar that I ran on Tuesday.
When the public thinks about "science," they generally think in terms of either medical advances or technology. They don't think immediately about basic research as the foundation for these achievements.
So if the public always has cures or wondrous new inventions at the top of mind, how do you communicate to them during tight budgetary battles the importance of maintaining and boosting funding for basic research?
As I suggested at the BIO panel and as I have recommended in conversations with various people from industry, one strategy for dramatizing the importance of basic research is to tell the stories of individual scientists in exciting and new ways, reaching publics across media platforms, specifically television and the Web.
A leading example of putting this strategy into action is Pfizer's recent launch of Think Science NOW. Here's how Pfizer summarizes the initiative in their press release:
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 10:58 AM • 0 Comments • View blog reactions
June 23, 2008
Category: Framing Science
Here are the details on the talk I am giving with Chris Mooney tonight at Cal Tech. Also online are the syllabus and readings for the science communication workshop we are running on Tuesday. For readers in the Los Angeles area, we hope to see you tonight!
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 10:27 AM • 0 Comments • View blog reactions
June 19, 2008
Category: Film/Doc Impact
The box-office troubles of docs such as "Bigger, Faster, Stronger" is in contrast to Expelled's impact.
The LA Times runs a story this week on the downturn in box office fortunes for the documentary film genre. The inability of well crafted docs about front burner issues such as Iraq or steroids to reach audiences and to catalyze policy debate makes the impact of Expelled (see column) that much more troubling and suprising.
As the LA Times reports:
Critically acclaimed films about provocative subjects struggle to make money all the time, but rarely have so many lauded documentaries consistently failed to connect at the box office. The recent nonfiction returns have been so bleak that several distributors are growing wary about taking on such highbrow works, an alarming development in a pop culture universe already dominated by "American Idol," James Frey and US Weekly."It's unlike anything I've seen before," says Michael Barker, whose Sony Pictures Classics has released the documentary duds "Standard Operating Procedure," "Jimmy Carter: Man From Plains" and "My Kid Could Paint That," none of which grossed more than $250,000 theatrically. "Unless you have movie stars like Michael Moore or Al Gore associated with your film, you can't sell tickets."
Posted by Matthew C. Nisbet at 12:25 PM • 14 Comments • View blog reactions
June 15, 2008
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
