What is the best way to disseminate science in the mass media?
WE should encourage people to learn it. for other things we have Discovery and national georgraphic channels.
Scientists need to talk to reporters.
Cross platform, multi media videos and graphices that support interactive language and culture specific application need(s), with communal subject moderaters who coach and counsel, while leading interactive dialogues, as will ultimately become embedded in all our cutting edge social networks. As will eventually become accredited with individual and institutional acceptance, and provide credit for academic research, llearning, work and development(s) achieved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFUli7Ne4o4 Slide Show
http://lnk.ms/GbQyj" Subscribe to my YouYube channel
Simple English, period.
I have no clear answer to this. How to reach people who simply are not interested? I have no clue. In Germany we have a number of excellent science shows on TV, for example, hosted by scientists, and many well known researchers regularly appear in talk shows and the like. But I am afraid no matter what we do: Germany's next Top Model or a famous standup comedian or top soccer games will always have higher quotas than Ranga Yogeshwar's "Quarks & Co". As great as he is: that middle aged Indian/German Nuclear physicist is not as cute as a bunch of teenage girls. And I do not see how to turn science into something "cute". The internet certainly is great for those who are really interested and motivated. It would have been a dream if I had had the internet when I was a teen. But then again, who knows: I might have ended up hanging out in dating chatrooms instead of science websites! No such temptations with those good old books, right? In the mass media the only way science ever managed to get higher quotas was by becoming less scientific and more entertaining, more flashy, colourful, extreme. Animated dinosaurs roaming invented landscapes, computer simulated animals facing off each other in unlikely confrontations. That sort of stuff that onyl vaguely resembles science. Then I actually prefer well done science fiction that has a carefully developed scientific base.
The best way is by persons trained in both science and journalism.
well, let's start by avoiding the sensationalism and imprecise vocabulary which is present all over the media, so as cursing and judging as bad everything that comes from science, starting from the abolishment of the non sense contraposition of "natural" vs. "chemical" when the entire nature itself is largely made of chemicals..
The right question is 'who is the best person to disseminate science?'
Mass media should think first the impact their news have in the world. By communicating a very good research result as the panacea of, let's say cancer, is only bad for both science and the people.
The right people that could disseminate science in the best way are scientists. It is not easy as scientist are trained to communicate science in another 'language', but some of them have the talent to explain things in a simple way.
Discourse and dialog. Inviting everyone to the table. Listening.
I don't have a formed opinion on that, but I think mass media is still centered in illusion to attract people's attention. We need more serious discussion so that bringing science to mass media doesn't become just a fancy way of talking about laboratories. Additionally, we must not show science, philosophy and society as separate things.
You have a hypothesis. You have to keep banging away at it, saturating the web with your work. Keep it up; you will attract attention.
People love good documetraries. Also internet DIY science, like Moon Zoo, could attract many.
Blogs - twitter - Facebook
Publications by the science communities
| 1 | 2 |
<< PREVIOUS NEXT >>