Tonight on PBS NOVA : "Welcome to Mars"

On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:56:55 -0500, RichA wrote:


Not a bad program. I wished they'd concentrated
a bit more on the mission goals/acheivements than
showing people cheering in the control room every
minute.
-Rich

Couldn't agree more.
But that's the way it is now in USA; we have to be shown people having
a good time to be convinced of the worthiness of just about anything.

DC

"Dan Chaffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:56:55 -0500, RichA wrote:


Not a bad program. I wished they'd concentrated
a bit more on the mission goals/acheivements than
showing people cheering in the control room every
minute.
-Rich

Couldn't agree more.
But that's the way it is now in USA; we have to be shown people having
a good time to be convinced of the worthiness of just about anything.

DC

Made for non-scientific people, no nothing about Astronomy or where Mars is.
JS

Dan Chaffee wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:56:55 -0500, RichA wrote:



Not a bad program. I wished they'd concentrated
a bit more on the mission goals/acheivements than
showing people cheering in the control room every
minute.
-Rich


Couldn't agree more.
But that's the way it is now in USA; we have to be shown people having
a good time to be convinced of the worthiness of just about anything.

DC

Yeah, the current way of making most programs. Showing
"the human perspective" or whatever them journalists call
it. It's nice and touching, but sometime they take it
a bit too far (I didn't catch the particular program, but
judging from people's reactions it was one of these).

- Alex

"
Made for non-scientific people, no nothing about Astronomy or where Mars
is.
JS


You are an idiot

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:13:14 GMT, "Szaki" wrote:


"Dan Chaffee" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:56:55 -0500, RichA wrote:


Not a bad program. I wished they'd concentrated
a bit more on the mission goals/acheivements than
showing people cheering in the control room every
minute.
-Rich

Couldn't agree more.
But that's the way it is now in USA; we have to be shown people having
a good time to be convinced of the worthiness of just about anything.

DC

Made for non-scientific people, no nothing about Astronomy or where Mars is.
JS

The average person isn't watching NOVA. They are watching some
dumbass reality show or sitcom.
-Rich

Nothing new. The same complaint goes for the coverage of a lot of sporting
events, particular the TV coverage of the Olympics, although there was a
minor improvement during the Athens event.

Someone in the entertainment industry has gotten it into their heads that
sports and science aren't interesting by themselves and that the audience
for both want the human angle on everything. Which, as a sometimes sports
watcher and frequent science program watcher I find obscene and an insult to
my intelligence. You should be watching the event for the principle reason,
to be entertained by the action of the athletes as they compete, or to be
educated on a topic. Another example (off topic here but I'll include it
nevertheless) is the recent movie on electronic music innovator Robert A.
Moog. Lots of human interest, nothing on what he did, when he did it, and
why he did it. Waste of my money and time.

And I don't buy the argument that it is a means to generate interest in
people who aren't into the subject to begin with. Baloney. Either you're
interested in it or not. Sugar-coating it as something else isn't going to
change things for a lot of people.

Apparently the shift of emphasis during the Athens Olympics was due in part
to viewer responses, although it's been a long time coming. But if we're
tired of such science programs that give off so much human interest heat but
sheds very little information light on the subject, we have to write to the
producers and complain cogently, politely, formally, and firmly.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Alexander Avtanski" wrote in message
...
Dan Chaffee wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:56:55 -0500, RichA wrote:



Not a bad program. I wished they'd concentrated a bit more on the
mission goals/acheivements than
showing people cheering in the control room every
minute. -Rich


Couldn't agree more.
But that's the way it is now in USA; we have to be shown people having
a good time to be convinced of the worthiness of just about anything.

DC

Yeah, the current way of making most programs. Showing
"the human perspective" or whatever them journalists call
it. It's nice and touching, but sometime they take it
a bit too far (I didn't catch the particular program, but
judging from people's reactions it was one of these).

- Alex

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:48:04 -0500, RichA wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:13:14 GMT, "Szaki" wrote:


Made for non-scientific people, no nothing about Astronomy or where Mars is.
JS

The average person isn't watching NOVA. They are watching some
dumbass reality show or sitcom.
-Rich

This WAS a reality show. The problem is it was real "reality" and not scripted like the "reality" shows are.

Mike Simmons

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 21:55:15 GMT, "David Nakamoto"
wrote:

Nothing new. The same complaint goes for the coverage of a lot of sporting
events, particular the TV coverage of the Olympics, although there was a
minor improvement during the Athens event.

Someone in the entertainment industry has gotten it into their heads that
sports and science aren't interesting by themselves and that the audience
for both want the human angle on everything. Which, as a sometimes sports
watcher and frequent science program watcher I find obscene and an insult to
my intelligence. You should be watching the event for the principle reason,
to be entertained by the action of the athletes as they compete, or to be
educated on a topic. Another example (off topic here but I'll include it
nevertheless) is the recent movie on electronic music innovator Robert A.
Moog. Lots of human interest, nothing on what he did, when he did it, and
why he did it. Waste of my money and time.

And I don't buy the argument that it is a means to generate interest in
people who aren't into the subject to begin with. Baloney. Either you're
interested in it or not. Sugar-coating it as something else isn't going to
change things for a lot of people.

Apparently the shift of emphasis during the Athens Olympics was due in part
to viewer responses, although it's been a long time coming. But if we're
tired of such science programs that give off so much human interest heat but
sheds very little information light on the subject, we have to write to the
producers and complain cogently, politely, formally, and firmly.

The human interest stuff is best saved for books on the subject, where
it won't displace (due to time constraints of a one-hour tv show)
the science. NOVA used to be different, some episodes still work,
like the one they did on the collapse of the Twin Towers, it
concentrated mostly on the metallurgy which was terrific.
-Rich

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 14:16:17 -0800, Mike Simmons
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 16:48:04 -0500, RichA wrote:

On Wed, 05 Jan 2005 08:13:14 GMT, "Szaki" wrote:


Made for non-scientific people, no nothing about Astronomy or where Mars is.
JS

The average person isn't watching NOVA. They are watching some
dumbass reality show or sitcom.
-Rich

This WAS a reality show. The problem is it was real "reality" and not scripted like the "reality" shows are.

Mike Simmons

You are dead-on right. I cannot believe that I've run into people who
believe things like "Survivor" aren't scripted. Like some producer is
going to risk millions of $'s by letting amateurs "wing" their lines!
-Rich