I had always assumed that TV news panders to the lowest common denominator because they think 95 percent of the populations are mentally challenged.
On CNN today they devoted an hour-long session with ‘Bill Nye The Science Guy’. He was their expert dealing with the Genetic code being broken (It really hasn’t, but that’s being too picky).
Here are my questions…
Did CNN choose Bill Nye because he is an expert in genetics?
Alternatively, was Bill chosen because CNN thinks we are all dumb and only Bill Nye could explain it to us?
Do all news providers think people are really rather dumb?
No, they probably chose him because he is not only a recognizable and dynamic television personality, but an award-winning science educator. (Nye’s education, FTR, is in Mechanical Engineering, via Cornell University.)
Who would you have preferred explain it to you?
No, news producers think people like to see people they recognize on television. And they are, by and large, correct.
Have you ever watched the news in the NYC area? It’s completely insulting. But in general I think that (a stupid general population) is a pretty safe assumption.
Hijack:
I have a theory to explain this:
The intelligence (I) of a group of people on any given matter increases in a linear fashion: the more people, the more intelligence they can apply. However, there is a second dynamic which I call “anti-intelligence” (stupidity, or Ii for Intelligence-inverse). Anti-intelligence of a group varies directly as the square of the population, but does not appear until the group exceeds 3 members. (for some reason, 3 seems to be the group size where intelligence maximizes, with 3 I and 0 Ii)
So in a group of 10 people, you have 10 intelligence units, or 10 I, but 100 Ii, giving a net delta I of -90, and a 900% decrease in effectiveness and decisiveness due to the Ii effect.
Have you ever wondered why in high school the loners were usually smarter than the popular people? That’s because they don’t have that many friends, thus fewer people around to build up large Ii fields.
Anybody can test my theory quite easily with this simple experiment: Approach two groups of people, one with 3 members and one with 10 members. With each group start a discussion about any topic of your choice and measure the time in seconds it takes for the discussion to include the word “felching”.
Further proof: Look at the sizes of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Q.E.D.
As a science-aware television professional (…now what the hell does THAT mean? No matter…) I thought I’d have to jump in the ring with Mr. Madd, but pl, you did a boffo job without me. Thanks.
And Joe, yes, I agree the local NYC news is pathetic! (You must admit that NY1 tries to do a good job, though.)
If you want to know my theory, it’s that there are so many people who are not natives that are the news directors and producers. They come here with a cartoonish, cliche-filled image of the place – so that’s the vision that ends up on the screen. I know that doesn’t really address the “intellegence deficit” point you raise, but it doesn’t help.
I love Bill Nye. I am not a third grader, but I do get sympathetically excited by how darn cool this man believes science to be. I think he’s just as good for science-jaded adults as he is for kids.
My SO needles me often b/c I watch this show almost religiously on Sunday mornings. By all means, I want to see more of this man in the national consciousness.
I, for the record, religiously watch Bill Nye the Science Guy religiously, and I have a bachelors of science degree in chemistry from one of the top chemistry schools in the nation, and am well versed in science. I don’t think Bill Nye dumbs down science at all. I think he is very good at presenting good science facts in an entertaining and interesting way. He’s rare in that his training and professional expertise is both in science (the aforementioned MechE degree at Cornell) and theatre (before science programming he was a stand-up comedian and cast member of a Seattle-based improv group)and that makes him a perfect person for a science TV show. Most adults I know who like science find Bill quite good. Even if we are experts in the field he is “teaching” about, we still find it engaging to watch his explanation. Now that is good.
The only thing that has tarnished my image of him was his participation in “The Universe of Energy” at EPCOT. I generally liked EPCOT, but this ride, funded by Exxon, had a definate “Oil is good and pollution ain’t that bad” spin to it. I was disappointed, but since Disney DOES sign his paycheck anyways, I have allowed him this transgression.
I think we’re going off on a tangent here. I did not impugn Bill Nye in fact I like him.
The OP was: Do news organizations thinking the masses have an IQ of a rock?
Nevertheless, A geneticist would have been more appropriate the Bill.
The problem with this story for CNN is that there are no great pictures. CNN likes stories with photographic drama. Unfortunately, every once in a while something happens that doesn’t involve an explosion. So when all else fails, fall back on a pseudo-celebrity.
Actually I think our culture needs to develop more celebrity scientists. But how to do it…?
Considering that CNN is aimed squarely at the lowest-common denominator its completely fitting, the ironic part is that you’ve only noticed Nye as being condescending, take a closer look at their other “experts” next time they’re on. It gets worse on those other cable “news” shows, there was an interesting piece on television a little while ago showing how ill-informed some (not Nye) of those “news experts” really are. Anything more challenging than a commercial is usually bad for business.