We Came, We Talked...We Quaffed

if we don't like how science is covered (or not covered) we must look in part to the profit-driven corporate media who simply don't care about substance over celebrity.

This isn't restricted to for-profit media. Take the blogosphere -- the studies or ideas that get the most exposure are sexy and usually wrong / overblown. Remember that study that showed how girls with girly names were less likely to excel in the sciences? We tore it apart pretty easily at GNXP, and the study still has yet to be published (maybe someone read our post / comments!).

So, I think what we have here is an example of Thomas Sowell's "conflict of two visions," between the one that sees humans as ever improvable, and the other that sees them inherently constrained.

Talking about reforming the media institutions assumes that they're out of whack with what consumers want. But if the average newspaper reader, or blog reader, has a natural tendency to prefer flashy and sexy over substantial but humdrum, then it is folly to ignore this.

Of course, the other side would say that consumers have these preferences because that's all they have access to, and mold their preferences accordingly. But we know that preferences in just about anything have a heritable component, and some are universal and likely have a genetic basis (for certain smells or facial features, say).

Plus, look at what happened with the advent of the internet and blogosphere. That was a big chance to provide an unmet demand -- but though it's better than the NYT, the blogosphere on the whole is just as driven by sexy studies to attract a following of reader-disciples, rather than plowing through the tough business of accumulating lots of boring things to get a better understanding of how the world works.

How do we deal with these inherent biases in human attention? I don't know. PETA certainly has hit on one solution: just accept them and pander to them. Another way is to just not address those who prefer sexy over substantial -- that eliminates about 99% of the population (due to not being smart enough to get it, or smart enough but bored by the results, etc.), but it allows you not to compromise integrity.

Those few blogs that do cover science well, and probably the NYT science section, strike a balance between these two strategies, so whatever they do, that's what we need to figure out. Profit and overall organization don't seem to have much to do with it. It's more in choice of strategies.

feeling somewhat more decadent than the after-church crowd

BTW Sheril, I like the casual, haphazard way of wearing the scarf. I'm going to start calling you Sprezzatura Kirshenbaum.

I really enjoyed your panel yesterday, the topics were definitely complex and I thought the session fueled some good discussion, I'm glad I got to come.
Just one note, thanks for the link but the name of my blog is actually Pondering Pikaia, it's not the same as the url.

Interesting comments today on the way we frame the future of science at The Rehearsal Studio, a blog written by AI expert Stephen Smoliar.

I too enjoyed the panel. Y'all did a nice job.

I wonder sometimes if we aren't focusing too much on the problems with media, and not looking at ourselves seriously enough. We hide our science behind firewalls and then wonder why we aren't part of the conversation? Seems a little nuts. We bring a lot of this on ourselves.

"In essence, Jennifer talked more about framing than we did. She made many resonant points, perhaps the most central being that if we don't like how science is covered (or not covered) we must look in part to the profit-driven corporate media who simply don't care about substance over celebrity."

Yes, well, ahem . . . CBS, no schlock in the profit driven media department, spent a full hour on Sunday looking at antarctic and arctic melting in relationship to global warming. Here's the CBS write-up: Sunday, Jan. 20, 2008
60 Minutes will not be seen this Sunday, Jan. 20.

Taking its place will be CBS News Presents: "The Age Of Warming"

Nowhere is the evidence of global warming as striking than near the earth's poles. CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley's report brings him to the top and the bottom of the world, where scientists point out the effects of the warming trend. He also speaks to NASA's top scientist studying climate, who says the Bush administration has restricted what he can say about global warming. Catherine Herrick and Bill Owens are the producers.

I watched most of it, and there was no celebrity driven fluff. granted, its hard to get this information into a one hour news magazine format show, but they did a reasonable job. My biggest problem, howvere, was one of the scientistst quoted said something to the effect of I don't have naything to do with the policy side of this - I just report the science fairly and legitimately and leave the policy up to others. That's where too many in the science community are on this issue, and that's what we need to move away from.

CBS, no schlock in the profit driven media department, spent a full hour on Sunday looking at antarctic and arctic melting in relationship to global warming.

Yes, but most of America was watching football, and I'm pretty sure CBS knew they would be.

I was apparently one of those few who did tune in to the CBS Age of Warming program. It was amazingly beautiful to see the landscape and the animals of our planet, and then the absolutely cruel realization of what is and will continue to happen to all of this beauty and wonder. Somethings must be done, RIGHT NOW...

Agnostic brings up some great points that were touched on a bit in the discussion, but not enough. It's too bad we had to cut off the discussion.