Push vs. Pull strategies in science communication

Danielle Lee, who just defended her PhD last week (her defense was livestreamed and livetweeted and liveblogged - Congratulations!!!!!!!!!) wrote a very thought-provoking post this morning - Understanding push-pull market forces and promoting science to under-served audiences. Go read it now.

If general public will not actively seek science content ('pull') than perhaps we can have the content come to them wherever they are ('push'). But people are scattered over gazillions of media places! How do we get to them everywhere? One answer is to try to get many people to contribute science-y stories everywhere (or, as I said before, we don't need one Carl Sagan, we need hundreds.... or thousands of them, each in a different media spot).

But the other important factor, and this is something that Danielle points out and I did not think of clearly before, is that the general population is not homogenous. There are groups that are not scattered all over the fragmented media but flock to specific media outlets that cater to them - media outlets they tend to own or run or work at or write for or have influence on.

Danielle goes into detail about the media consumption of the African American community, but her thoughts apply to other groups as well, e.g., Latinos, or gays, etc. This may also apply to various blogospheres, e.g., mommybloggers, atheist bloggers, feminist bloggers - all groups with strong group identity, congregating at a relatively limited number of media outlets on a regular basis.

One thing that Danielle noted is that media outlets that target African Americans prefer if the science stories are "Africo-Americanized", i.e., that they specifically hook the audience with something that is directly relevant to that community (and supposedly no other community). Why? Cool science stories are cool for everyone. I suspect that this was more editor-think than the actual response of the audience to Danielle's science articles that were cool without being 'Africo-Americanized'.

And some of the communities are more inclined to be interested in science than others, especially those communities that see themselves as 'reality-based', thus inherently science-friendly. Thus progressive blogs like DailyKos have regular science coverage both on the main page and in the diaries - cool science stories, as well as science/political controversial topics. Atheist blogs are sometimes indistinguishable from science blogs. Feminist bloggers, like Lindsay Beyerstein, Jesse and Amanda at Pandagon and some of the community bloggers at Shakesville regularly touch on science topics (especially those with either public health concerns, or environmental concerns, or with political controversies associated with them).

But how do we get science stories, purely cool or group-targeted, in front of other audiences, e.g., those based on race/ethnicity, or gender/orientation? Are whites much more scattered across the media than minorities or do they also congregate around their various interests? Where do they congregate? How do we 'push' science there where they are? Not just online, but also in big corporate media, especially television?

More like this

The series of interviews with some of the participants of the 2008 Science Blogging Conference was quite popular, so I decided to do the same thing again this year, posting interviews with some of the people who attended ScienceOnline'09 back in January. Today, I asked Danielle Lee from the Urban…
Journalism has always been communal Top Google queries about scientists: should we be surprised? Getting more out of scientific content Telling tales... The Science Reader: A Crowd-Sourced Profile Journalism and the public understanding of how science works. A suggested remedy. So what do the…
A blog is software. Importantly: a blog is free software. Everyone can use it in any way they want. If there are 100 million blogs out there, there are 100 million blogging styles and 100 million ideas what blogging "is". And anyone who dares tell others how to do it incurs the wrath of the other…
You know I have been following the "death of newspapers" debate, as well as "bloggers vs. journalists" debate, and "do we need science reporters" debate for a long time now. What I have found - and it is frustrating to watch - is that different people use different definitions for the same set of…

OMG, she is SO brave. I would have died. But that was in 1971, before TV.

One useful aspect of on-line news aggregator sites: allowing a "push" via user submissions.