Entertainment Media

Reconsidering the Image of Scientists in Film & Television

nisbetmc — Wed, 05 May 2010 12:35:54 +0000

Reconsidering the Image of Scientists in Film & Television

Chiwetel Ejiofor as geologist Adrian Helmsley in last year's blockbuster 2012 is one of the many emerging "hero" images of scientists in popular film and television.

In graduate school, I published with several colleagues a paper examining the portrayal of scientists in film and television and the relationship to audience perceptions. At last week's workshop on science and art in Alberta, I had the opportunity to return to this topic, one that remains much debated by commentators and scientists.

Contrary to conventional wisdom that entertainment media portray science and scientists in a negative light, research shows that across time, genre, and medium there is no single prevailing image and that both positive and negative images of scientists and science can be found. More recent research even suggests that in contemporary entertainment media, scientists are portrayed in an almost exclusively positive light and often as heroes.

Critics of the entertainment industry point as hard evidence of negative portrayals to a study from the early 1980s by former University of Pennsylvania communication researcher George Gerbner. The study showed that scientists in comparison to other occupations featured in primetime television suffer a higher ratio of negative stereotypes and are more likely to be victims of violence. Yet more recent research indicates a major shift in the image of scientists on the screen. In a 1998 unpublished report to the U.S. Department of Commerce, Gerbner and colleagues updated their analysis, concluding that based on data collected during the mid-1990s "there is no basis to claim that any kind of systematic negative portrayal of scientists exists. Changes have occurred in Hollywood since the time of our initial study, which found scientists to be typically evil, disturbed, sexually dysfunctional villains....this is no longer the case."

More recent analysis of TV content presented last year at a major communication conference confirms this trend towards an overwhelmingly positive image for scientists in prime-time television. Scientists--similar to their distribution as a profession among the population--still remain a rare character in the TV world, but when they are shown, they are almost exclusively shown in a positive light.

Over the past two decades, not only has the image of scientists in film and television shifted, so have the stereotypes held by audiences. A study published this month analyzing U.S. national survey data finds that in comparison to 1985, American adults in 2002 were far less likely to hold negative stereotypes about scientists and were much more likely to believe that a career in science was a desirable choice for their children or for themselves. (This is yet another study that challenges the "fall from grace" narrative about science in American society and the claims about a hostile public.)

Beyond these statistical indicators of the portrayal of scientists, what kinds of images have appeared over time and across genre? What image might be on the rise today? In the paper I published with colleagues in 2002, we highlighted several different clusters of images.

Scientists as Dr. Frankenstein: This image is one that scientists most frequently single out, portraying their profession as sinister, socially irresponsible, evil and violent, and ultimately headed for failure and demise by the end of the plot. Examples of this image include Gregory Peck as Dr. Mengele in Boys from Brazil, Marlon Brando as Dr. Moreau in The Island of Dr. Moreau, and Jeff Goldblum as the scientist in The Fly.

Scientists as powerless pawns: In this image, scientists are shown as easily manipulated or dominated and as pawns doing dirty work for big business, the military or a master evil figure. Examples include Robert Duvall as Dr. Griffin Weir in the 6th Day and several of the scientists in Jurassic Park who work for Richard Attenborough's character John Hammond, CEO of InGen.

Scientists as eccentric and anti-social geeks: In this image, scientists are so dedicated that they spend most of day at work, they deviate from norm in dress and looks, and have few families, friends, or romantic interests, and are generally socially awkward. Examples of this image include Christopher Loyd as Doc in Back to the Future, the nerdy boys in John Hughes 1985 film Weird Science who use science to create the perfect woman, and Val Kilmer and his fellow grad students in the 1985 film Real Genius who serve as graduate students to a professor who is determined to master a Star Wars-like satellite technology.

Scientists as Hero: In this image, scientists take on the lead role as action hero and protagonist, often also serving as the voice and force for ethical decisions and virtue. Examples include Dr. Alan Grant as the main protagonist in Jurassic Park, Spock in the new version of Star Trek who takes on leading man and action hero qualities to rival Captain Kirk, Jody Foster's character in Contact, Sigourney Weaver's character in Avatar, Denis Quaid as the climate scientist hero in The Day After Tomorrow, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the geologist hero in 2012, Morgan Freeman in the Batman films as inventor Lucious Fox and CEO of Wayne Industries, and Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in the Iron Man films.

What do readers think of this typology? Other examples or images to add?

nisbetmc Wed, 05/05/2010 - 08:35

Tags

Entertainment Media

Science communication research

Science Fiction

Unscientific America?

Abby Sciuto, the forensic scientist on NCIS, is smart and solves crimes, and the girls in the local high school want to be her and the boys in the local high school dream of dating her. There has been a giant jump in the interest of high school students in forensic science!

Several other recent portrayals on TV have had a positive effect.... Bones, played by Emily Deshamel is clever, a bit nerdy and hot, as are her colleagues. Gris on CSI, played by William Peterson reminds me of what I thought I was once like! Not so much CSI Miami, where Horatio Caine comes in for some flak, but overall his character is positive.
The Linda Hunt character in NCIS - LA is as quirky as they come and definitely one of the good guys.
So overall the image is more positive than negative.
As a side note, I chair my local Science Fair and the various CSI-type programs had caused the Grade 7-8 crowd to look at forensic science and its associated disciplines in more detail, and we are seeing SF projects related to this theme.... at least it gets their attention and they look into science with a bit more enthusiasm.

I think you'd also like this and the links within and at the bottom - you see, I don't disagree with you 100% of the time, only 99% ;-)

Scientists as Hero

As bad as the movie is, Dr. Keyes (Aaron Eckhart) from The Core counts as a scientist-hero.

Additional examples:

Indiana Jones as a heroic figure

Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde... both as a mad scientist and, in a way, a powerless figure -- a victim to his other self.

Regarding the topic in general, I think it's is mostly a positive thing for scientists to have a spotlight, such as with Indiana Jones or so. However, I think it's potentially too misleading.

By saying this I mean that people of all ages get a false idea of what science is, how it's done, and what they might expect if they were to aim at becoming a scientist, e.g. an archaeologist 99.99999% of the time does not get to carry a nice revolver, whip, and swing through mysterious ruins in a jungle being chased by indigenous people because he/she stole a valuable relic that was guarded by numerous boobie traps.

It can be a bit of a deterrent for some and may take away from the joys that truly do exist in that line of work. I enjoyed archaeology regardless of all the fantastic tales.

I also think that in some cases the fiction portrayed can inspire scientists to strive for those somewhat unrealistic goals, such as space flight... while we may not ever have to send astronauts to an asteroid to blow it up before it becomes a world ending scenario, it may inspire scientists to dream up innovative ideas to push humanity further into space.

Fringe has Dr. Walter Bishop, whom has the qualities of an eccentric Dr. Frankenstein whom is now trying to redeem himself. So he really fits in to multiple categories which makes for a far more interesting character.

I would say that there are quite a few scientists in movies and TV shows and most of the time they are the good guys. The only thing is that they also tend to be a bit abnormal. In Bones, Temperance is almost completely socially inept and can't even figure out simple cliques. This is also true in The Big Bang Theory where the characters range from very nerdy to a guy that makes Temperance from Bones look normal.
I know this makes for a more interesting show and I have to say I watch all of the shows mentioned in all the different posts. Though, it would be nice, if when I told someone that I am a scientist, I didn't get the "but you seemed normal" reaction.

Surely it hinges on your definition of "positive" and "negative"?

You probably think of Dr Strangelove as a negative stereotype, but to me he seems pretty neutral. I, on the other hand, find modern TV and movie "scientists" of the kind you describe, who spout technobabble that the proverbial smart schoolchild would find risible, not merely negative but insulting too. Yet you, inexplicably, hail them as "positive".

Heroes they may be; scientists they will never be. They merely replace magicians as a plot device.

I'm a big fan of "Fringe", and think one of its main themes is this very subject--the portrayal of scientists as "moral" or "amoral", "good" or "evil". One of the main protagonists, Dr. Walter Bishop, is a scientists of the Nth degree who has a long history of amoral scientific behavior, but, as a previous poster mentioned, is also ashamed of his past behavior and the lack of consideration he had for ethics in the past. That said, the character is clearly conflicted--he recognizes much of his past work was very important and helpful generally while done in an amoral fashion. A main antagonist, Dr. William Bell, is Walter's old partner who we know little about besides that he is also a genius scientist of questionable moral fabric (who may well not be an antagonist--the show keeps a great deal of ambiguity regarding morality, which is a strong point because the honest truth is that few of us are paper-thin two-dimensional "right" or "wrong" archetypes in reality). These characters and conflicts are certainly what keep me coming back to the show, as I find them very interesting. I will say I had a fear that the show was demonizing science at first, but as it has progressed, it has proven to be ironically realistic in its portrayal of the morality of scientists (ironic because the things the scientists do in the name of science are completely unrealistic--time travel, two-pound viruses, mind control, pyrokinesis, et cetera).

Scientists as taxi driver: In this image, scientists do not get a proper position.

I know this makes for a more interesting show and I have to say I watch all of the shows mentioned in all the different posts. Though, it would be nice, if when I told someone that I am a scientist, I didn't get the "but you seemed normal" reaction.

I'm shocked that no-one has mentioned Jeff Goldblum in Independence Day. And the original character of Kirk was surely a scientist as well (as were Picard and Janeway).

Movie Studios Seek to Control Twitter Effect on Box Office

nisbetmc — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 06:47:32 +0000

Movie Studios Seek to Control Twitter Effect on Box Office

Over the summer, a few stories have appeared speculating about a new "twitter effect" on movie box office success. The technology is thought to speed-up and amplify the traditional word-of-mouth influence. For example, the less than anticipated opening weekend for Bruno is believed to be partially attributable to movie-goers leaving the film (sometimes early) and twittering a negative review.

Now it appears movie studios are attempting to turn the twitter effect in their favor. From today's Washington Post:

Studios are trying to gauge the impact of an avalanche of tweets and how it affects the staying power of a movie. Was the 39 percent box-office drop of "BrÃ¼no" from Friday to Saturday a case of disappointed moviegoers tweeting from theater lobbies? Or did a limited fan base for "BrÃ¼no" exhaust itself on that first day?

"I think Twitter can't be stopped," says Stephen Bruno, the Weinstein Co.'s senior director of marketing. "Now you have to see it as an addition to the campaign of any movie. People want real-time news, and suddenly a studio can give it to them in a first-person way."

Eamonn Bowles, president of Magnolia Pictures, says studios are worrying about a time when "people will be Twittering during the opening credits -- and leaving when they don't like them." But he also warns, "The next step [for the Twitter Effect] is for studio marketing to manipulate it."

The Weinstein Co. has done that big-time for the Friday release of the Quentin Tarantino-Brad Pitt World War II epic "Inglourious Basterds." The company packed a screening at San Diego's Comic-Con with people who won access via Twitter. It also staged "the first ever Red Carpet Twitter meet-up" during the movie's premiere at Grauman's Chinese Theatre in Hollywood, generating celebrity tweets, including Sarah Silverman's "just made me smile forever" and Tony Hawk's "another Tarantino classic." Twitter has broadened the reach of bloggers and other aspiring opinionmakers.

[Combining technology with opinion leader influence not only applies to movies, but also to engagement campaigns on science-related issues such as climate change. For an overview, see this recent paper I published with John Kotcher at Science Communication.]

nisbetmc Thu, 08/20/2009 - 02:47

Tags

Entertainment Media

Film/Doc Impact

Opinion-leader influence

This has shown up in college football as well. The SEC (the conference containing the powerhouse southern schools) has recently instituted a complete ban on Twittering and other social media for fans in the stadium. It's started a bit of an uproar, needless to say.

Thanks for sharing the information i needed it friend...So when's yours next post.

Some of the credit for using Twitter to create WoM belongs to the company I just finished working for, New Media Stratgies, who were responsible for promoting this film through social media marketing.

Combining technology with opinion leader influence...

This sounds very Gladwellian.

I've just been reading "Made to Stick" and the authors don't really think much of the value of "opinon leaders."

Have you talked about his in earlier posts?

"about this"

Tomorrow @ AFI Theater: Discussion of Inherit the Wind

nisbetmc — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:43:52 +0000

Tomorrow @ AFI Theater: Discussion of Inherit the Wind

Tomorrow night, watch Spencer Tracy argue in defense of evolution.

For readers in the DC area, tomorrow night at 7pm, the NIH Office of Science Education and the American Film Institute are teaming up to sponsor a screening of Inherit the Wind as part of their summer film series "Science in the Cinema."

Following the film, I have been invited to make a few remarks on the evolution debate as it plays out in contemporary culture and the enduring themes from the classic movie. The event and film series is designed to facilitate active audience participation and debate, so I expect there will be some very interesting discussion. For more on the relevant themes related to science and public engagement, see this forthcoming article on "What's Next for Science Communication?"

nisbetmc Tue, 07/28/2009 - 04:43

Tags

DC Events

Entertainment Media

Evolution/Intelligent Design

The obverse of inherit the wind, brought to you by the Discovery Institute, is Expelled, with Ben Stein in the leading, sympathetic role.

Actually, today's ITW is the DVD of the Dover Trial, with Judge Jones in ST's role.

Hi, Matthew.

Just came from the program at AFI.

Did have one question cross my mind: Do you think it would have made any difference if Darwin had kept the tree "right side up" i.e. instead of referring to the "Descent of Man" (from the apes) he had referred to the "Ascent of Man"?

Also, I read a really great consideration on the "levels of consciousness" in E.F. Schumacher's "A Guide for the Perplexed" - one of my "Top Ten Books Under 200 Pages". Are you familiar with it?

Thanks again for your presentation.

Peace,

Lori

It is wonderful to see that NIH is hosting the âScience in Cinemaâ series. The representation and misrepresentation of science on film has a long and vivid history that has shaped public understanding of science. I recently made a documentary film in which I tried to expose the inner workings of a science lab â a Biochemistry lab at Columbia University to be precise. In order to make a film that people would respond to, I had to capture the drama inherent in research, but without the tedium of most documentaries, or the clichÃ©s so typical of science fiction. At the onset of the filmâs production, my hypothesis was that in one dynamic laboratory, with a young and still evolving professor and a cohort of interesting graduate students, we could observe the transformation of the novice into an independent scientist, highlighting the factors that make it happen â commitment, selecting a worthwhile problem, mastering technology, mentoring, collaborating, and dealing with competition. It took four years to create a film that adequately portrays this complex process. For more information about the film, go to http://naturallyobsessed.com/blog/category/science-on-film

I agree with Lori's comment -- Darwin's phrasing of "descent" is a poor choice and loaded. In modern times, I bet Darwin would have had a PR rep that cleaned that title up and set him straight ;-).

Hi Lori,

It's an interesting observation, but I don't have a good answer on what it's impact might be.

Thoughts from other readers?

--Matt

Thanks, Kathy and Matthew.

I wonder though if Darwin was not speaking from his own cultural bias and time. There were certainly strong religious beliefs abounding (which still do in some quarters) that basically said: In spite of our extraordinary capacites (or, at least the degree to which we could/can express them) relative to other non-humans, as "human beings" we were/are STILL not as "ascended" as "God Almighty" and so still "descended" from that level of "spiritual superiority"; i.e. ALL beings "lower" than "God" have obviously "descended", including humans.

I wonder though, if there is something to be said for a "full circle" event going on here; i.e. Divine Consciousness "descending" into material form only to evolve that form to such a degree that Divine Consciousness (as non-separate, egoless, Self-Awareness) can once again be fully Realized, ultimately through the mechanism of the human body-mind?

In that case there would be both - Descent and Ascent going on here, except that most human beings haven't quite "pulled out of the dive" yet, their "points of view" still being focused on and limited to the "descent" part... ? : ))

Celebrity Religion: On Michael Jackson, Princess Diana, and Mother Teresa

nisbetmc — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:41:03 +0000

Celebrity Religion: On Michael Jackson, Princess Diana, and Mother Teresa

A 1997 poster appearing in Central Park.

Perhaps the best commentary on the cultural reaction to Michael Jackson's death comes from the NY Times' columnist Bob Herbert. After describing meeting Jackson in the mid-1980s as one of the "creepier experiences" of his life, Herbert goes on to discuss how Jackson was the perfect symbol of the age, a retreat for Americans into fantasy during the years of the Reagan administration, rising poverty, and an escalating crack and drug epidemic. As Herbert writes:

In many ways we descended as a society into a fantasyland, trying to leave the limits and consequences and obligations of the real world behind. Politicians stopped talking about the poor. We built up staggering amounts of debt and called it an economic boom. We shipped jobs overseas by the millions without ever thinking seriously about how to replace them. We let New Orleans drown.

I had similar thoughts on the eve of Michael Jackson's death. As I status updated at my page on Facebook: "On a day featuring a historic vote on climate change, everyone is talking about Michael Jackson."

The reaction to Michael Jackson can only be compared to the media tsunami surrounding the closely paired 1997 deaths of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa. At the time, I was living in my hometown Buffalo, NY and working at the Center for Inquiry before heading off to graduate school two years later. Here's what I wrote in a 1997 op-ed for the Buffalo News about those events, with obvious parallels to the contemporary Jackson hoopla.

Buffalo News (New York)
October 4, 1997, Saturday, FINAL EDITION

DIANA AND MOTHER TERESA MAY MAKE GOOD FOLK LEGENDS, BUT;
THE TRUTH IS MORE COMPLEX

BYLINE: MATTHEW NISBET -

SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE, Pg. 2C

LENGTH: 785 words

Where were you when Princess Diana died? I was at a 20-something party where the news passed quickly from person to person. Soon all of us were gathered in front of CNN listening to Tom Cruise, the star of Top Gun, condemn the "stalkerazzi." To most of those at that party, it was the shocking death of a childhood fairy tale.

When Mother Teresa died, I was at work and got the news almost instantaneously by e-mail. To most people, the passing of Mother Teresa was the death of a contemporary saint.

What followed these two deaths was the greatest heap of mass melodrama, foolishness, faddishness and media hype seen this century. Hundreds of millions tuned in on television, record numbers of magazines were sold, a sea of flowers was created across multiple continents, "Clone Diana!" posters appeared in Central Park, tribute pop songs rode the airwaves. Everyone in the world with access to an antenna was fed image after image of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa.

They were modern-day folk legends that satisfied a global craving, the temptation of humans to believe in the transcendental and mythic. The two were dominant symbols of fading, but still powerful, international belief systems. Princess Diana was the last representative of the elegance, purity and perfection of royalty. Mother Teresa was the dominant image of religious devotion and piety.

Diana's was a story complete with royal intrigue, infidelity and a winning smile. A pretty and alluring, but not beautiful, girl from an aristocratic background, she enjoyed the one-in-a-billion fortune of marrying the crown prince of Great Britain. From the beginning she knew her duty was to play charming princess and child-bearer to an awkward and staid prince whose heart was elsewhere.

Upon divorce, Princess Diana received a $ 26.5 million-dollar settlement, or $ 600,000 a year. Because she was lonely and depressed, her folk legend asked us to feel sorry for the best-dressed and most photographed woman in history. However, the real tragedy of her life was that she was a mother who left behind two children early in life.

If we peel away the aura of her legend and think critically about her death, we see an all-too-familiar end that goes with a high-risk Hollywood-like lifestyle. The circumstances might be considered akin to the sudden death of a Kurt Cobain or James Dean. With her children in England, Diana was jetting around Europe with her billionaire lover. Whistling through a Paris tunnel in a Mercedes piloted by a drunk driver, playing tag with photographers, she was caught by mortality.

Mother Teresa's folk legend remains the embodiment of all things saintly. Over the decades her name became a synonym for religious devotion and good samaritanism. But the small woman from Albania was also an implicit representation of turn-of-the-century colonialism. As she tended to the sick and the poor of India, her image administered a necessary antidote to the guilt felt by the Western public over the perceived plight of the Third World.

One of the few members of the media to criticize Mother Teresa is Christopher Hitchens, who writes for Vanity Fair and The Nation. Hitchens questions the use of donated funds by Mother Teresa and their relation to her fundamentalist views against abortion, birth control and divorce. He estimates that she received well over $ 50 million in contributions from individuals, religious organizations, corporations and secular foundations. Yet with all this money, she ran colonial-style health clinics that, according to many former volunteers, did little more than pray for the dying. Many in Calcutta resented her international publicity, claiming she broadcast an unfair image of urban poverty while doing little to work for social reform.

In the end, what do we know of the effectiveness of Mother Teresa's efforts? We don't dig into statistics like percentages lifted out of poverty, number of urban health clinics, birth-rate decline or improvement in average incomes and education levels. All we have is the enduring image of a white, frail nun in a sari tending to the dying and sick of India.

The glorification of Princess Diana and Mother Teresa is a testament to the power of the primordial drive to push critical thought aside and to believe in the extraordinary, the magical and the transcendental.

Yes, their lives were marked by significant contributions. But to deify them in death does not appeal to reason.

MATTHEW NISBET is a writer living in Williamsville.

nisbetmc Wed, 07/08/2009 - 01:41

Tags

Entertainment Media

Gray's Anatomy Finale Misleading on Cancer?

nisbetmc — Wed, 20 May 2009 06:32:30 +0000

Gray's Anatomy Finale Misleading on Cancer?

As we discuss in a current working paper, the "going broad" strategy of using entertainment media to reach wider audiences was first pioneered in the area of health.

For example, working in collaboration with experts, screenwriters for the series ER purposely inserted plot scenarios intended to raise attention to beneficial health behaviors. Evaluation of the efforts found important impacts in raising awareness, discussion, and interest in the featured health topic among viewers. More recently, a special issue of the American Journal of Bioethics evaluated the use of programs such as House to teach viewers--even medical students--about ethics.

Not every TV series, of course, reflects closely expert views or opinion. Last week, I found myself thinking this as I sat in the living room working from my laptop as my girlfriend watched the season finale of Gray's Anatomy. The plot line involving a major character's life and death choices on how to treat her skin cancer which had spread to her brain seemed a bit far fetched, if not misleading for viewers.

Turns out my suspicions were correct. Here's how USA Today presented the problem last week:

The two-hour broadcast depicted Izzie and her fellow doctors agonizing over how to treat her melanoma -- a deadly form of skin cancer -- that had spread to her liver, bowel and brain. Because of the location of her brain tumor, doctors presented her with two unattractive options: surgery that could leave her with severe memory problems or a highly toxic drug called interleukin-2, or IL-2.

In fact, doctors never recommend IL-2 for melanoma that has spread to the brain because it can cause bleeding and strokes, says Otis Brawley, chief medical officer at the American Cancer Society. If doctors are concerned about the risks of surgery, they recommend radiosurgery, in which doctors focus intensive radiation on the tumor, he says....

...Though TV hospital shows are great drama, they often stretch the truth, says Brawley, who concedes he went into medicine partly because he was inspired by shows such as Medical Center, the CBS drama that aired from 1969 to 1976. "Many people view the cancer problem as much simpler than it actually is," Brawley says. "That's because they get their medical information from television shows. But television shows are by and large fictional, and much of the medical information there is also going to be fictional."

nisbetmc Wed, 05/20/2009 - 02:32

Tags

Entertainment Media

Health Communication

Gray's Anatomy cancer misleading information season finale

Darwinius masillae: Is The Hype a Bigger Story than the Science?

nisbetmc — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:55:15 +0000

Darwinius masillae: Is The Hype a Bigger Story than the Science?

It started this morning with the front page story at the NY Times. Tellingly, the article wasn't hooked around Darwinius masillae as a historic scientific breakthrough but rather as a novel ramping up in communication strategy for science. Now across the blogosphere, the tag of hype has caught on to Darwinius masillae, just notice these google results.

It's difficult to find fault with the criticism given that the architects of the media blitz are using trigger words like "missing link," "the eighth wonder of the world," and "an asteroid falling down to Earth" in the world of Paleontology. Just take a look at this Sky TV report linked to by Drudge, who headlined the discovery for most of the day.

One important thing: Already I am noticing an all too common tendency among science bloggers to blame the media and journalists for the hype. Sorry guys. If the "hype" label is accurate, this one started with the scientific team and the sponsoring organizations, who supplied the language, the imagery, and the roll out.

Don't get me wrong, I love the innovative strategy, it's just that as I blogged earlier today, it might not be appropriately used around a single study, and best applied to a body of knowledge and scientific subject generally. Indeed, in this case, the strategy might be larger than the science.

For more on the hype angle, see Charlie Petit at Knight Science Tracker and Curtis Brainard at the Columbia Journalism Review. [Daniel Boorstein might go so far to call this a pseudo-event.]

nisbetmc Tue, 05/19/2009 - 10:55

Tags

Entertainment Media

Science Journalism

Darwinius masillae publicity hype

The marketing strategy (and that is about the best way I can put it) for this fossil seems tied to a particularly US based view of evolution as distinct from a general scientific view. The US view is tied up with the notion of proving the theory of evolution, filling in the gaps in the fossil record with the 'missing links' and finding our ancestors. It has implicitly recognizes and seeks to counter the challenges of the creationist lobby.
In the rest of the world this lobby does not exist to anywhere near that extent and so a more measured approach can be taken.

"Accurate but unpopular," or "inaccurate but popular," that is the question facing the communication of science these days. In my upcoming book (yes, I know, cheap plug, sorry, coming in August from Island Press), in my chapter on storytelling I examine the two global warming movies of 2006 that were both produced by Laurie David. Her movie, "Too Hot Not To Handle," on HBO was accurate but hardly anybody saw it. Her other movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," scored over $50 million at the box office, but was rife with flaws and errors. This is the central dilemma that will continue to challenge major science communication efforts. It's looking like this Ida group opted in the direction of "popular but inaccurate" a little bit with the implication that we are direct descendants of this fossil, making for a stronger media story. The question is what is the threshold for the science world on the inaccuracy side. Most of us would like it to be zero. Is that attainable?

Matt:

Already I am noticing an all too common tendency among science bloggers to blame the media and journalists for the hype. Sorry guys. If the "hype" label is accurate, this one started with the scientific team and the sponsoring organizations, who supplied the language, the imagery, and the roll out.

I agree that, at least in this case, much of the blame for the hype lies with the scientists, but based on the blog posts I've read today, I have to disagree that the science bloggers are not acknowledging this.

Randy:

Nice distillation, though I'm not entirely convinced that "accurate and popular" is unattainable. Are you by any chance coming to the science journalism conference in London? This would be a great venue to discuss such things..

National Academies' Launches The X-Change Files

nisbetmc — Tue, 19 May 2009 14:26:09 +0000

National Academies' Launches The X-Change Files

Speaking of "going broad" with science communication, here's something I really like. As part of their Science and Entertainment Exchange initiative, the National Academies has launched The X-Change Files blog with author Jennifer Ouellette, producers Janet & Jerry Zucker, physicist Lawrence Krauss, CSI screenwriter Matt Partney, and physicist Sidney Perkowitz as contributors.

I write about the Science & Entertainment Exchange initiative in several forthcoming articles and spotlight it in talks on the road, so I look forward to following the blog!

nisbetmc Tue, 05/19/2009 - 10:26

Tags

Entertainment Media

Science Fiction

The X-Change Files Physics Science Entertainment Exchange Watchmen Jennifer Ouellette Zucker National Academies Hollywood Movies Lawrence Krauss

The Link? "Going Broad" with Darwinius masillae

nisbetmc — Tue, 19 May 2009 07:48:35 +0000

The Link? "Going Broad" with Darwinius masillae

Fronting the NY Times today is a preview of a bold new strategy for engaging hard to reach audiences on science. As the NY Times describes, today's media event that unveils the fossilized remains of the monkey like creature Darwinius masillae features a unique collaboration between the History Channel, the open-access journal PLoS One, and the American Museum of Natural History.

Along with today's publication at PLoS and the media unveiling at AMNH, there will be a two hour documentary on Monday at the History Channel, an exclusive arrangement with ABC News to appear on Good Morning America, Nightline, and World News, and a high end multi-media Web site. In addition, publisher Little, Brown plans to ship 110,000 copies of a book on the find titled simply The Link. The History Channel says it paid a record price for the two-hour documentary, which will subsequently also air on BBC and the German broadcaster ZDF.

Today's event--a publicity tsunami relative to traditional science communication practices--is part of what my co-author Dietram Scheufele and I call in a paper under review "going broad" with public engagement. It's a strategy that's necessary in today's fragmented media world and one used across other sectors of society and commerce. ""Any pop band is doing the same thing," Jorn H. Hurum, the lead scientist on the Darwinius masillae project tells the NY Times. "Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking the same way in science."

Below the fold is how we describe this emerging "going broad" trend in the section of the paper that recommends several bold new innovations in science communication.

My chief concern about today's announcement is that it might extend into hype, a reservaton also noted in the NY Times article. The careful balance between innovation in public engagement and the avoidance of hype is something that we also address in the working paper. In particular, when this type of "going broad" strategy is applied around a single discovery or finding rather than a broader scientific subject or body of research, the probability of hype is deeply magnified. More on that later. But for now, go below the fold for our description of the "going broad" strategy.

"Going broad:" Beyond elite audiences. As mentioned earlier, some critics argue that it would be unethical to take advantage of strategic communication tools in order to make scientific issues more relevant and accessible to a general public. But recent data on potentially widening knowledge gaps suggests that it may be unethical if we did not use all communication tools at our disposal in order to connect with hard-to-reach audiences (Scheufele & Brossard, 2008).
Many traditional approaches to public communication about science, for instance, have inadvertently favored elite audiences. In fact, some previous attempts to connect across diverse sections of the public have resulted in widening gaps between the already information rich and the information poor. This is partly due to the likelihood of exposure. Almost 40% of college-educated respondents, for instance, visited a science or technology museum in 2006, compared to less than 10 percent for respondents with a high school education or less (National Science Board, 2008).

As a result, museum exhibits, science Web sites, traditional science documentaries, and similar outreach efforts may inherently favor elite audiences. Widening gaps between the information rich and information poor are also a function of the way issues like nanotechnology and biotechnology play out in public discourse. In their research on "knowledge gaps," Phil Tichenor and his colleagues (1970) found that audiences with high socioeconomic status (SES) showed much stronger learning effects from health related information than low-SES audiences. This effect is in part due to the fact that TV shows like PBS' NOVA or the Science section of the New York Times tailor their content to highly educated audiences. As a result, learning effects for mass audiences are minimal, even if these audiences happen to tune in to NOVA or read an article in the New York Times.

What are needed then are media strategies for "going broad" with science-related content, generating attention and interest among non-elite audiences. Surveys, for example, show that local television news remains among the dominant sources of public affairs-related information for the American public (Pew 2008b). Therefore, in order to reach non-traditional audiences, scientists and their organizations need to be on local television news. To do so, major national communication efforts should be closely coordinated across local media markets, with specific scientists, institutions, or organizations serving as the local angle and spokespeople. An alternative model is the example of Climate Central, a non-profit partnership between journalists and scientists who produce climate science stories for syndication at local television outlets across the U.S. (Brainard, 2008).

New documentary genres and storytelling techniques are also an important mechanism for going broad. Surveys in the U.S. show that programming at the Discovery Channel, National Geographic, and Learning Channel constitutes the largest and most diverse audience for science-related content. More than 40% of respondents across educational levels, gender, age, religious background, and ideological orientation say that they "regularly" view these channels. In comparison, 10% or less of respondents across these groups regularly watch PBS NOVA or subscribe to Scientific American, Discover, Nature, or Science magazines (Pew 2006). Specific to the environment, the box office success and media visibility in the U.S. for the 2009 major motion picture release of Earth, a theatrical version of a series that originally aired on the BBC and Discovery Channel, is further evidence of the wider appeal of these new documentary genres.

A recent National Academies (2008) project that pairs scientists as consultants on major motion pictures and television series is also a step in the direction of going broad and reaching new audiences. In similar fashion, an initiative led by physicists used the 2009 major motion picture release of Angels & Demons as a way to capitalize on the summer blockbuster's focus on particle accelerators and anti-matter. The project organized local lectures in 45 locations across the U.S. and Canada and launched an educational Web site "Angels & Demons: The Science Revealed."

Long used as a strategy for engaging the public on public health issues (Kaiser,2004; Montgomery, 2007), active involvement with Hollywood in the construction of messages about science can lead to a range of outcomes including informal learning, enhanced interest and attention to science in news coverage and other media, the modeling of positive behavior related to environmental sustainability or energy use, the favorable framing of controversial issues such as the teaching of evolution in schools, or even a spike in news or policy attention to a scientific topic such as climate change. Web platforms such as the Angels & Demons site facilitate incidental exposure to science among individuals using search engines to find more information about the film.

Other important media outlets for expanding audience reach include comedy news programs such as The Daily Show and The Colbert Report. Studies have documented the ability of these programs to engage younger, harder to reach audiences about political candidates and election campaigns, shaping their political attitudes and levels of political knowledge (Feldman, 2007; Feldman & Goldthwaite-Young, 2008). On science, a recent Pew (2008c) analysis finds that The Daily Show includes comparatively more attention to science and technology topics than the mainstream press and significantly more attention to climate change. These programs also generate buzz online with heavily-trafficked and forwarded clips on hot-button science topics such as evolution, genetics, climate change, or stem cell research. Additionally, both shows frequently feature scientists and science authors as interview guests, for example Neil deGrasse Tyson and Brian Greene.

Given that satire and comedic news are increasingly preferred media formats for younger audiences, more research is needed on the potential for using this style of humor as a tool for public engagement on science. Little is known, for example, about the comparative effects of science information communicated in satirical form compared with the same information communicated in traditional science media. Greater understanding in this area would inform not just media strategy but also the incorporation of humor and satire into the production of documentary film, Web, and museum content.

nisbetmc Tue, 05/19/2009 - 03:48

Tags

Entertainment Media

Enviro/Science Reporting

Science communication research

science museums/centers

Darwinius masillae History Channel

Angels and Demons' Focus on Science and Religion

nisbetmc — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:36:21 +0000

Angels and Demons' Focus on Science and Religion

Angels & Demons opened this weekend with a less than expected $48 million just edging out the still hot Star Trek ($43M, $150M over two weeks). I took in the film at a 3/4 filled theater in Georgetown.

Angels is worth seeing and a better film version than Davinci Code. The film is also likely to spark conversations among movie-goers on the relationship between science and religion, a theme that is heavy throughout the film and the novel.

Without spoiling the plot, Angels features a Pope inspired by science and who views research on the so-called "God Particle" as a means for engaging the public on issues of science and faith. Of course, just like in the real world, there are other major characters in the film who for their own personal gain take actions to promote the perception of false conflict between science and religion. In fact, these actions feature as the central plot premise of the film.

nisbetmc Sun, 05/17/2009 - 11:36

Tags

Entertainment Media

religion

Science Fiction

Angels and Demons science and religion box office

The movie sucked. You cant get a full understanding of the plot without reading the book. Interesting read!

The gnostic gospels have been a lost piece of history for too long, now. People should be aware of these important writings. Though maybe not the word of God, they are still accounts of the time of Christ.

Why are you worried about âspoiling the plotâ? There was a Wikipedia page up on the plot details so fast it must have been sent from a laptop in a theater.

Tom Hanks on The Daily Show Talks Physics

nisbetmc — Fri, 15 May 2009 08:25:54 +0000

Tom Hanks on The Daily Show Talks Physics

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

M - Th 11p / 10c

Tom Hanks

thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Economic Crisis

Political Humor

Blockbuster movies, The Daily Show: As I discuss in forthcoming articles, these are the new tools for "going broad" and motivating interest among mass audiences on issues related to science and society. Watch Tom Hanks above have fun and talk some of the implications of Angels and Demons. You can fret over the accuracy of Hanks' banter when it comes to anti-matter, but some portion of the Daily Show audience and the audience for the blockbuster movie are going to come away doing google searches and motivated to learn more. In so doing, they will find quality sources of information.

Hat tip to Greg Laden.

nisbetmc Fri, 05/15/2009 - 04:25

Tags

Entertainment Media

religion

Science Fiction

Tom Hanks Daily Show Angels and Demons science and religion physics CERN

I don't want to hear Tom Hanks talk about physics any more than I want to hear Jenny McCarthy talk about vaccines. I would, however, listen to legendary Queen guitarist Brian May talk about physics. It doesn't matter that he is a geat musician. It does matter that 36 years after starting his thesis, he went back and finished a doctorate.

Tom Hank's Hollywood stardom gives him an audience. It does not give him any credibility on any subject other than acting. We should not buy into the trap of granting celebrity status a privilege it does not deserve, even when addressing a topic we support.

I think that it is great that the public can see that someone whom they know and like for other reasons is also interested in science. I think that people generally should, and in most cases will, carefully consider the source. I agree with Matthew Nisbet that many will be motivated to learn more, and thus find some of the quality sources of information online

I also believe that the scientific community would be wise to monitor these sorts of situations and be prepared to jump into refute any misstatements that might be made. Perhaps, assuming this program was well accepted by the Colbert audience, it might serve as an opening for a professional physicist to appear on the show to give a "real scientist" perspective.

If we want to increase scientific literacy, we need to encourage discussion and debate, and thus expect that misstatements will occur and clarifications will need to be made as a part of that discussion process.

If we adopt an attitude that only people with PhD's should be qualified to talk about science we will only fan the flames of anti-intellectualism and ensure that science is only a fringe activity.

But what would I know? I only have a Master's degree.

Note: I think I do usually know how to distinguish Jon Stewart from Stephen Colbert, but apparently not always.