We're Losing the War on Ignorance, Big Time

The BBQ Pit
41

Jesus F. Christ. Is what I’m saying really that radical an idea or so off-base that people have to dispute it? How can you possibly dispute a call to making sure, when speaking as a scientist to the general public, that you make sure your message is clear?

How about this: “ensuring that your message is not mis-interpreted through any omission, over generalization, or unnecessary oversimplifaction on your part”?

Have you ever been interviewed for a major publication or media? Well, I have (yes, the Bad Astronomer is not the only one on this entire Board who has appeared in print, thanks), and I know goddamn well how easy it is to be misquoted if you do not pick your words exactly right. So you can either say “screw it, if they draw the wrong conclusions, fuck em” and come off sounding like an enormous Snap-On Tool[sup]TM[/sup], or you can take extra pains to make sure that the public hears what you want them to hear - which is the truth, or your actual, unmodified and unedited opinion on the subject.

42

KYLA! Great to hear from you again! How’s Meeeeshigan?

Anyway, I’m no hero. Just doin’ my job, and making sure the bastards don’t win. How long does it take someone pissing you off enough before you decide to do something about it?

It isn’t heroism. It’s hadenoughism.

43

You can choose your words as carefully as you like: the odds of being misquoted, misinterpreted and plain old taken-out-of context approaches unity the more you talk to the media. It is not up to the interviewee to make sure what they say gets into print accurately, though of course watching your mouth helps (and I open mine too widely at times too; the “tootling” quote comes to mind). It is most certainly up to the media to write accurately.

There are many steps in getting science into the public’s mind, and mines lying in wait at every one of those steps along the way. I’ve heard that at least one writer referred to me as supporting the hoax theory in some medium. That is so utterly wrong it’s impossible to guess how it got said. How can I possibly guard against that?

44

Perhaps for you, but not for me. The more I’ve been quoted in articles or for conferences, the more I’ve learned to pick my words carefully so the odds of being misquoted decrease. I often have the reporter read back to me exactly what they’ve taken down as notes, and then I typically have to make corrections in a second iteration. Then I ask them to tell me how they would write it up (couched in terms of “let’s see if I can give you some key phrases that will help you write this”), and then suggest more corrections. I’ve never had a journalist ever take offence at my “help” - they typically seem quite grateful, in fact.

What have I been saying in this thread?

All I’m saying is you have some choices: say whatever the hell you want, in whatever technical and confusing terms you want to, and then throw up your hands and say “screw 'em if they misquote me”. OR…try to take some careful pains to avoid being misquoted. This is not that hard to do. They teach it in Toastmasters. They teach it in business communications courses. There are MBA classes on this. The SDMB is good practice and training for this as well. There are many sources for learning this.

What is the real issue here? How on Earth can one possibly argue against taking all possible pains to be clear in communication? No wonder the average rabble hates/fears science so much. Of all the bone-head stupid things I say and advocate here, this is not something which I thought would get as much disagreement.

I want to know exactly what the argument is against what I previously said:

Really? Why is this bad? :confused:

There are other aspects as well. If I am misquoted, it not only makes me look like a tool, but it also can cost me money. If potential or existing clients remember a key misquote, or key out-of-context quote, then it can influence them to not hire me. I consult for the public directly - I do not work at a university, where I can pretty much say whatever the hell I want when I want, and not be fired.

But my scientific and professional integrity is also important. And when someone comes up and says “Oh yeah, you’re the one that said it would be easy to ship PRB coal to Mexico - what were you drinking?”, it really steams my hams.

You can’t always win, but you still must try. You have to fight, or you just give up. You do the best you can, and if you can’t win, you force a correction and/or retraction. You can do no more, until the law changes to hold journalists personally criminally responsible for sloppy reporting and deliberate slurs which can destroy lives and livlihoods (not likely in this Century…).

45

That’s just the morbidly curious, waiting to see whether he’s going to off himself in his latest “I’m retiring forever, for good, permanently this time, no I really, mean it this time, no, really” episode.

(That is still Dec. 31, right? Or did he decide to stick around longer?)

Such credibility.

46

The Teeming Millions should start a thread after every episode he does debunking the previous episode. And then maybe send the link to the producers.

47

CONSTANT VIGILENCE in the fight against Ignorance

48

And minor oversights in the fight against speling errers. :smiley:

49

Cold.

And I think the Art Bell show is freaking hilarious. I love the calls he gets. It reminds me of ghost stories around the campfire when I was a kid. Ghosts! Monsters! Cool!

50

Point taken. There are also a myriad of positions at NSF that are not occupied by scientists: administrative assistants, accountants, etc. I don’t think a scientist would refer to such people as “colleagues” but that’s more of a grey area. Or, yes, the reporter could have used the term inappropriately to put a more outrageous spin on the statement, or to please the readership by portraying the moon hoax theory more sympatheticially–“Hey, even NSF brainaics aren’t sure!” Or maybe it was just bad writing.

51

Okay, here it is: http://www.petitionpetition.com/cgi/petition.cgi?id=4985

52

Hey, I signed it! Glad you liked the suggestions!

Here’s some more, BTW: Programs showing other space programs and private initiatives. When new launches of private ventures are forthcoming, show them as ‘breaking news’.

And don’t forget the Aerospace component. NASA TV could show test flights of X-planes, highlight groundbreaking new technologies, etc. Some of these shows could be licensed from Speedvision and Wings, cutting production costs.

A show called “Spinoff”, which not only shows spinoffs from space, but intermixes it with footage from the space missions responsible for creating the spinoff to make it more interesting.

Oh, and give Tom Hanks, Harrison Ford, and Ron Howard a call. All three are big space enthusiasts, and could probably be counted on to donate time and effort to some new ventures.

Oh, and while we’re at it, add “The Great Space Movies” - Show The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, 2001, and “From the Earth to the Moon”.

How about commissioning a new Science Fiction show set in the near future, with the heroes portraying NASA astronauts in 50 years or something?

The Hubble deserves a weekly show. The database of images is huge, and each one has a story to tell. Teach some astronomy along the way. Or how about a show called “Eyes in Space”, which showcases the all of the current and future space telescopes?

Live programming from the ISS. Find a half hour a week for astronauts to broadcast a show directly from the station.

And put all this stuff on fixed schedules. We get NASA TV, but I never know what’s on, because it seems to be mostly filler that’s just added haphazardly around various live broadcasts. And most of the time I check it’s not even on the air. After a while, you get out of the habit of even checking.

53

Hey, Tuckerfan, have you posted the petition link in MPSIMS somewhere yet? (I just signed it, BTW.) I bet most of the people on the SETI SD team would be interested in signing it, so at least pop into the SETI@Home thread and mention it.

Maybe we should put Sam Stone in charge of the NASA channel - those sure are some great ideas!

54

Even better, I added it to my sig line.

55

RE: My typo -

:smack:

56

Now that I think about this, BA, your “tootling” comment shows that brainy types have a sense of humor which is a stark contrast to the “Semi-Animated-Corpse-Like-Scientist-Who-Makes-Ben-Stein-Look-Like-Carrot-Top-On-A-Meth-And-LSD-Fueled-Bender” so often portrayed in the media.

Oh, and Sam if you’d be so kind as to post your comments in this thread in the messages section of the petition, I’d be most appreciative. I can’t alter the petition without losing the signatures, or I’d add them to it. So far, we’ve got seven signatures. It’s not much, but it’s a start.

57

on the Art Bell show.

BA- what was your experience like? I did hear it & you seemed to be having a good time. May I ask what your impression of Art himself was? (I think he was hosting that night- not one of his guest hosts)

58

Actually, George Noory guest-hosted both times I was on. It was interesting (and tiring; it runs from 11-2 a.m. here on the Left Coast).

I wasn’t thrilled at first to go on, as that show is a lightning-rod for every wacky bad science theory out there, but then figured, what the heck? Perhaps that’s the audience most in need of some skepticism.

It worked out pretty well; they invited me back, Noory now publicly says he thinks the Moon landings were real, and the producer wants me back sometime in the future (I guess they don’t get too many scientists willing to make dumb jokes on the radio).