In retrospect it was a lot like Colbert or Ali G.

@ 23 TGAP

It started with kissing related blog post around Valentines day 2008 since I often choose timely topics related to seasons and holidays. There’s a lot of different kinds of research from across fields that has not previously been put together so it made an interesting project. By 2009, I did an article on it for New Scientist and co-organized the Valentine’s Day AAAS symposium on the ‘Science of Kissing‘ in Chicago. It’s a far more interesting and interdisciplinary topic than I ever imagined and the book was born…

That said, I’d love to write about marine conservation next!

I’m sure this was extremely irritating when it occurred, but your account of that ghastly interview is a lot funnier than the Jorge Cham strip. The reporter’s strange fixation on the sun, the irrelevance of shooting a story about the ocean near a pond, and then:

You: …it can sometimes lead to what’s called a dead zone–

Reporter: …We need you to say something about the sun being a factor. And let’s get you wading into the water. …

You: Uh, the sun didn’t cause the bloom… and you do realize I’m wearing a dress, right?

I love the way the guy blithely ignores a significant point to go back to the sun, and then throws in the bit about wading into the water in pursuit of specimens–it’s like something one of those clueless reporters in the old BBC comedy show Radio Active would have said, or (to try to be a little more current) something out of a segment of the Daily Show. I can just see Stephen Colbert doing the interview back when he was still a reporter on the Daily Show: Okay, it’s not the sun, but could you just say that it is? And could we film you wading into this pond?

Now I am aware of the flip side of that coin–interview subjects who can’t or won’t say anything usable, or who on camera won’t say anything at all. My father used to tell of a horrible interview he’d done as a young radio announcer (his first job). The guy, a famous musician with a hit single at that moment, on the show presumably to promote his concert, would talk only in monosyllables and had to be prompted to even mention that he was playing in town. The way my father told it it was hilarious, but I’m sure at the time he had visions of being fired. I get why reporters look for visually interesting material to shoot, and prompt their subjects to focus on what they see as the important elements of a story.

But–I’m sorry, this is so over the top. I can’t get that picture out of my head–a marine biologist wading into a pond in pursuit of specimens. While wearing a dress.

Stunningly ill-chosen, as Leonard Pinth-Garnell might have put it.

In the case of the Pluto story, the MSM chose to frame it as a petty squabble among scientists rather than actually providing an explanation of the scientific issues behind the decision. When some non-scientists took exception to the change of Pluto’s status, that is what became central to the story – not the science or even the scientists, but jokes on Leno and “save Pluto” web sites. That was what captured the public imagination, and it’s not clear to me that the scientists involved could have reframed it in such a way that both the scientific background of the debate would be included in the story, and the MSM would have devoted as much airtime to it. Without that public “outrage”, there might not have been coverage at all.

So that’s the real question to me – what are scientists and science communicators to do, exactly? It’s hard to predict what will take the public’s fancy, so I would think that trying to anticipate how to frame a science story to “sell” would be hit or miss, particularly if you want the science behind the story to be presented accurately. The MSM’s interest in accurate science reporting – which from what I’ve seen in my local paper and on the local news is the exception, rather than the rule – is crucial to raising the awareness and interest of the public in science, but I don’t know how that’s going to happen when stories about the miraculous curative properties of red wine and scientific cat fights are what attract eyeballs.

I wonder how many deeply entrenched truisms stem from scientists dealing with journalists demanding something sexy.

Neurologists, circa 1940: “We only know what ten percent of the brain does.”

Journalist, bored by comparisons to switchboard: “So, we don’t use 90% of our brains?”

Neurologist: “Uh, well . . .”

Journalist: “Great doc! I’m out of here.”