With more than 300 TV stations available by cable and satellite nowadays, there are at least a few science- and nature-focused networks. Many of the programs on these networks are highly educational and entertaining, but it is so damn annoying to watch 40 minutes of program punctuated liberally with 20 minutes of commercials. I highly recommend the purchase of a programmable video recorder; it is a great time saving device. It is ironic that pseudo-science products, such as Q-rings, are quite often featured in the commercials on these stations. The nature programs on these stations are great, but here especially, the information provided about the creatures shown is often very limited. This is particularly evident in the Japanese productions that have wonderful photography, but scripts that seem to be aimed at elementary school children. These TV stations are not at the top of the list of those that kids and teenagers want to watch.

With respect to the general news programs that cover science-related topics, no one should expect to learn much from a 3 minute spot on the nightly news. Informed documentaries probably remain the best way to educate the general public about important scientific issues such as environmental pollution, warming, resource and species depletion as well as plethora of other worthy topics. As increasing opportunities arise with new mediums for the communication of scientific thought, more scientists should directly leap into cyberspace to engage the general public to spread the facts and challenge popular misperceptions. We should not be leaving it just up to the TV, radio, magazine and newspaper reporters to disseminate science to the general population. Inquisitive minds will seek the truth if it is out there.

Miko (33) said:

“Brian’s overriding point is that TV is not fair and balanced, since it gives far more weight to non-mainstream views than is deserved.”

This is stupidity of the same sort as when Christians complain that they’re being oppressed whenever someone says “happy holidays,” and for the same reason.

Not really.

All religions and lack thereof should be treated more or less equally, since none is permitted to be superior in our societies (well, in theory at least).

In science, there is only one right answer – the universe is what it is, and no amount of wishful thinking will change that. As we learn more about how the universe works, there are certainly plenty of areas of uncertainty. But, at the same time, the areas in which we can be confident that our theories are at least a good approximation to reality gradually grow.

Thus, we can be pretty sure that the following are at least close approximations to reality:
Atomic theory;
Quantum mechanics;
Evolutionary theory;
General relativity (with certain exceptions);
Germ theory;
Big Bang cosmology (with certain exceptions);
and so on.

Thus, the “mainstream” view, i.e. the scientific consensus, in each of these areas is (1) most probably right in all important respects; and (2) if wrong, at least not grossly wrong but wrong only in subtle ways.

To illustrate what I mean by example, general relativity (GR) is a much better description of gravity than Newton’s gravitational theory. Newtonian gravitational theory is “wrong”. However, in most circumstances, it is a very close approximation – close enough that the differences between Newtonian gravitation and GR are genuinely trivial. Thus, Newtonian gravitation approximates GR under many circumstances.

If the theories I listed above are “wrong”, they are most probably only “wrong” in the same way that Newtonian gravitation is “wrong”.

While the mainstream naturally wants to suppress all other points of view entirely in order to justify its faith in conformity,

Utter rubbish. Where do you get this from?

the idea that any particular view “deserves” to have a set amount of coverage is nonsensical.

It’s not a question of the amount of coverage, it’s the credulity of that coverage.

Much TV coverage of science presents new, uncertain or controversial ideas as if they were not uncertain, as if they were not controversial, and as if they have as much validity as the well-established and well-supported theories they seek to replace.

Big Bang theory is an interesting example. It is very successful, and explains so much of what we observe, and yet many leading cosmologists feel that it is inadequate or “wrong” in various ways. IIUC, there is no consensus about what is most wrong with it, and there is no consensus about how we should go about fixing it or replacing it. But there are some very clever people working on these problems. However, from the point of view of trying to present this to a largely-ignorant public, it would take at least a full hour (not counting commercial breaks) to convey a very shallow overview of the topic. And even this goes no way to addressing the many misconceptions about cosmology that are floating about in the internet, never mind those that are propagated or promulgated by some of the less good TV coverage of science.

For the most part, views (mainstream and otherwise) get exactly as much TV coverage as TV viewers want them to have.

But TV viewers are not – for the most part – suited to judging what is good science and what is bad. That’s where you need experts. And much TV coverage of science will give (approximately) equal time to opposing views, no matter how many experts are convinced that viewpoint A is a better fit to the evidence than viewpoint B.

Sometimes the “fringe” views are proven correct (Wegener’s continental drift comes to mind) but often they are not (Fleischman and Pons’ “cold fusion” is a relatively recent example). What is too rarely conveyed in TV programmes is the inherent uncertainty of many of the new ideas, and the fact that more or better data is often required to resolve the question.

Ultimately, the nature of science is such that public media are not a useful forum for determining what is or is not a better description of reality. The correct forum is the primary literature. “Popular-science” TV shows, as a concept, are far more valuable informing the public of what is known with some fair degree of confidence, and what is not, and what questions are being tackled at the forefront of research, than determining what is or is not the correct answer. And the same applies even more so to news coverage of scientific topics.

I think this is why Brian Cox says what he says about TV not being balanced appropriately.

On topic: Watching Brian Cox stand there and talk for fifteen minutes tops anything I have watched on television in the last month.

I’m not one of Cox’s fans. Which is ironic ’cause I am definitely a fan of cocks.

Interesting, but icky.

That sums up quite a lot of biology.

Especially the ichneumonidae.

Well, duh! That’s exactly what Brian is saying. He’s simply trying to point out that scientists still have to be ethical in the face of a medium that is less than factual, more often than not.

This is stupidity of the same sort as when Christians complain that they’re being oppressed whenever someone says “happy holidays,” and for the same reason. While the mainstream naturally wants to suppress all other points of view entirely in order to justify its faith in conformity, the idea that any particular view “deserves” to have a set amount of coverage is nonsensical. For the most part, views (mainstream and otherwise) get exactly as much TV coverage as TV viewers want them to have.

@Gus Snarp:
Allow me to quote the actual FDA statutes. First, the statutory definition of “pointer”:
———————-
21 CFR 1040.10 Laser products

(b)Definitions. As used in this section and 1040.11, the following definitions apply:

(39)Surveying, leveling, or alignment laser product means a laser product manufactured, designed, intended or promoted for one or more of the following uses:

(i) Determining and delineating the form, extent, or position of a point, body, or area by taking angular measurement.

(ii) Positioning or adjusting parts in proper relation to one another.

(iii) Defining a plane, level, elevation, or straight line.
——————————
Second, here’s the statute prohibiting the use of lasers more powerful than Class IIIa as pointers:
——————————
21 CFR 1040.11 Specific purpose laser products.

(c)Demonstration laser products. Each demonstration laser product shall comply with all of the applicable requirements of 1040.10 for a Class I, IIa, II, or IIIa laser product and shall not permit human access to laser radiation in excess of the accessible emission limits of Class I and, if applicable, Class IIa, Class II, or Class IIIa.