How bad is scientific journalism?

I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.


"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."


Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy AND won't know how many
days there are in a year?



Jonathan


s

On 22/12/2011 02:23, Jonathan wrote:
I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.

The thread should be more accurately titled:
"How bad is the public understanding of science that journalists feel
the need to spell it out like this?"


"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."


Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy AND won't know how many
days there are in a year?

They are writing for the general public who it can safely be assumed are
as dumb as rocks. Half of them think the sun goes around the Earth and
the world will end 21/12/2012 when the Mayan calendar overflows.

At least what has been written is factually correct - so the science
journalist has not made any mistakes which *is* unusual.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Dec 22, 10:23*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.

"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."

Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy *AND *won't know how many
days there are in a year?

Jonathan

s

That's nothing. I've seen National Enquirer stuff on the History
channel.

The norm is exaggeration and sensationalism. I pay little attention
to science in the popular press, don't even read it.

On 22/12/2011 02:23, Jonathan wrote:
I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.


"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."


Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy AND won't know how many
days there are in a year?


I think there's a lot to be said for emphasising the contrast in the
planet's year length in this way.
Some people reading the article won't have a particular interest in
astronomy, so maybe showing that planets can have such a huge difference
in year lengths will spark an interest that wasn't there before.

I think that's worth doing.

Dear OG:

On Dec 22, 12:12*pm, OG wrote:
On 22/12/2011 02:23, Jonathan wrote:

I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.

"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."

Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy *AND *won't know how many
days there are in a year?

I think there's a lot to be said for emphasising the contrast
in the planet's year length in this way. Some people
reading the article won't have a particular interest in
astronomy, so maybe showing that planets can have such
a huge difference in year lengths will spark an interest that
wasn't there before.

I think that's worth doing.

I concur. There are a lot of little bits of information that
"everyone knows", that are not actually universally known, say to
small(ish) kids. Not easy to find, unless you know the right key
words either.

I note also that (not that this is journalism, per se) NASA sees fit
to do such a comparison on a regular basis:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary.../marsfact.html
.... down to "Sidereal orbit period (days)" for example.

As to the population "interested in the latest discoveries of
astronomy", this includes a boatload of people that know squat about
astronomy, but do (or can) help support Science.

David A. Smith

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 22/12/2011 02:23, Jonathan wrote:
I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.

The thread should be more accurately titled:
"How bad is the public understanding of science that journalists feel the
need to spell it out like this?"


"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."


Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy AND won't know how many
days there are in a year?

They are writing for the general public who it can safely be assumed are
as dumb as rocks. Half of them think the sun goes around the Earth and the
world will end 21/12/2012 when the Mayan calendar overflows.


The Mayan thing really does ring with a lot of people, just
today at work I heard someone going on and on about it.
Someone else chimes in the Mayan calendar only ends
at 2012 cause that's where they ran out of rock~

Most five years old how many days are in a year.
If 'science' wants to bring in the public, they should stop
talking down to them like they were children, get with
the program and start explaining what's in it for the public.

A better future is the biggest attractor of all.



At least what has been written is factually correct - so the science
journalist has not made any mistakes which *is* unusual.


Not about science, but about people. Just because others
may seem ignorant at first blush, doesn't mean they are.
With the Internet, people can become informed on just
about any subject in minutes. If 'science' can't figure out
how to give people a reason to be interested, well that
says more about science than the public.



Jonathan



Regards,
Martin Brown

On 23/12/2011 00:30, Jonathan wrote:
"Martin wrote in message
...
On 22/12/2011 02:23, Jonathan wrote:
I found the following sentences reading the paper today
about two Earth sized planets just discovered.

The thread should be more accurately titled:
"How bad is the public understanding of science that journalists feel the
need to spell it out like this?"


"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of
Venus but much closer to its star, zoomng around it
every six days. An Earth year, by contrast, is 365 days."


Now, how many people would be interested in the latest
discoveries of astronomy AND won't know how many
days there are in a year?

They are writing for the general public who it can safely be assumed are
as dumb as rocks. Half of them think the sun goes around the Earth and the
world will end 21/12/2012 when the Mayan calendar overflows.


The Mayan thing really does ring with a lot of people, just
today at work I heard someone going on and on about it.
Someone else chimes in the Mayan calendar only ends
at 2012 cause that's where they ran out of rock~

Unfortunately, doomsday cultures are all the rage. I think they were a
bit disappointed that the sky didn't fall down for Y2k and still have
lots of tinned sausages and stale bread buns to chew through.

Most five years old how many days are in a year.
If 'science' wants to bring in the public, they should stop
talking down to them like they were children, get with
the program and start explaining what's in it for the public.

Whilst I agree that communication of science to the public needs to be
improved I do not see how you can avoid explaining stuff in painful
detail when the public are so scientifically illiterate.

A better future is the biggest attractor of all.

The likes of Brian Cox and Jim Alkhalili on TV have done wonders for
popularising the hard sciences in the UK. Unfortunately, dark forces are
at work in America sponsored by Exxon to promote anti-science.

At least what has been written is factually correct - so the science
journalist has not made any mistakes which *is* unusual.


Not about science, but about people. Just because others
may seem ignorant at first blush, doesn't mean they are.

They are ignorant (that means not knowing). They may not be completely
stupid, but they do a pretty good imitation. How else do you explain the
popularity of brain dead reality shows as prime time entertainment?

With the Internet, people can become informed on just
about any subject in minutes. If 'science' can't figure out
how to give people a reason to be interested, well that
says more about science than the public.

They can also read up on ozone-butter and any number of potentially
lethal quack remedies for serious or non-existent medical conditions.

The internet is a double edged sword there is no guarantee that what you
read here is correct. sci.astro seems to attract raving netkooks and
nutters with "NEW THEORY OF THE UNIVERSE" like moths to a flame

Thankfully most of them have to use all capitals in their titles which
when combined with regex filters is very helpful.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:30:56 -0500, Jonathan wrote:

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
On 22/12/2011 02:23, Jonathan wrote:
I found the following sentences reading the paper today about two
Earth sized planets just discovered.

The thread should be more accurately titled: "How bad is the public
understanding of science that journalists feel the need to spell it out
like this?"


"The smaller planet, Kepler 20e, is about the size of Venus but much
closer to its star, zoomng around it every six days. An Earth year, by
contrast, is 365 days."


Now, how many people would be interested in the latest discoveries of
astronomy AND won't know how many days there are in a year?

They are writing for the general public who it can safely be assumed
are as dumb as rocks. Half of them think the sun goes around the Earth
and the world will end 21/12/2012 when the Mayan calendar overflows.


The Mayan thing really does ring with a lot of people, just today at
work I heard someone going on and on about it. Someone else chimes in
the Mayan calendar only ends at 2012 cause that's where they ran out of
rock~

The Mayan thing is right up there with the "millennium bug" and the
irrational fears of "Electromagnetic Pulse" and "Anthropogenic Global
Warming".

Fear sells.

The real thing people have to fear in December 2012 is what happens after
the U.S. Presidential elections. There will be an end to the bail out
money giving the false illusion that the economy hasn't collapsed, and
the riots will start and the FEMA camps will start to fill up.

If Ron Paul is elected, the Central bankers will start a war against the
US, like they did in 1812.

Most five years old how many days are in a year.

Uh... No, they don't.

It is the job of the "science journalist" to know his audance. Most
science journalist have little respect for their readers, and would good
reason as most science journalist are almost completely ignorant of
science themselves - and they have to cover a variety of fields and can't
possibly be familiar with ALL of them.

If 'science' wants to
bring in the public, they should stop talking down to them like they
were children, get with the program and start explaining what's in it
for the public.

Actually, scaring the **** out of the public works better to sell their
stories.

A better future is the biggest attractor of all.



At least what has been written is factually correct - so the science
journalist has not made any mistakes which *is* unusual.


Not about science, but about people. Just because others may seem
ignorant at first blush, doesn't mean they are. With the Internet,
people can become informed on just about any subject in minutes.

Oh Geezus ****ing Krarice! In minutes, huh? You're going to learn, say,
Quantum mechanics in minutes by reading the internet.

Psychologist gave a name for the condition where people who know a little
about something TOTALLY underestimate the complexity of the subject and
grossly overestimate their knowledge of that subject.

If
'science' can't figure out how to give people a reason to be interested,
well that says more about science than the public.

Why would the general public be interested in science? They have no hope
of understanding the science itself. Science, by definition, has no
practical uses - it is a LIBERAL ART. I rarely sit down in my home and
need to work a QM problem. It isn't like I could get any customers if I
opened up a quantum mechanics store next to a Wal-Mart. People can barely
balance their checkbooks - and you think they know science? Oh please.