Comments on: The Mighty Power of Blogosaurus?

By: Enezio E. de Almeida Filho

Enezio E. de Almeida Filho — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:52:53 +0000

Thanks Carl for this article. I hope science editors will pay close attention to this rather odd situation.

By: davidmaas

davidmaas — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:37:59 +0000

“can you really blame them…?”

Yes. Its the Discovery Channel.

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:10:52 +0000

and generally treating the audience like they are 12 year old boys that have been held back in kindergarden

Considering the stunning ignorance regarding science that seems to be rampant on the net, newspapers, and the high ratings achieved by tv shows that pander to the lowest common denominator, can you really blame them for thinking their audience are like a bunch of 12-year olds?

By: Darren Garrison

Darren Garrison — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 19:24:59 +0000

#9 Derek said:

- monster-trunk style commentary
- British accents (sorry, I just don’t like them unless they’re female)

Hm. Don’t like monster trunks, don’t like British accents. Better avoid the 2008 BBC movie of The Colour of Magic!

Actually, that is good general advice for anyone…

By: davidmaas

davidmaas — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:28:37 +0000

The reference to Nasa was made, I believe in the dino mailing list, as an exemplary way of putting the science out there under the control of the scientists themselves. A paleoplatform with brief videos presenting key concepts would be an interesting way of getting the ideas out there, supported with specific links to the many fantastic blogs and sites such as wiki, http://www.paleocene-mammals.de/ and http://www.palaeos.com/ for further reading… as well as books.
There are many artists out there who I’m sure would be honored to have expert consultations with scientists to make sure content is correct, and having their work presented next to other graphic materials. I’m sure the artists are the key multiplicators in accessing popular opinion and fascination, not just in the form of sexy illustrations, but in the form of explanatory graphics.

By: Blogosauruses and bad bad bad bad science TV [Neuron Culture] « Random Information

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 06:32:04 +0000

[...] Blogosauruses and bad bad bad bad science TV [Neuron Culture] I wanted to rig up an electrified fence around the falsehood to keep the producers from sneaking back to it via blogs.discovermagazine.com [...]

By: Derek

Derek — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:21:44 +0000

National Geographic station here in Canada plays some awful awful science programs. It is just frustrating. Some things that annoy me:

- little info: what takes them an hour to say with dramatic pauses could be said in 5 minutes. How about fewer pauses, more info?

- monster-trunk style commentary

- British accents (sorry, I just don’t like them unless they’re female)

- Comparisons. ex said dramatically “That’s as heavy as 50,000 dwarf rabbits each pregnant with 4 pups !”, or “as long as 10,000,000 badminton rackets lined end-to-end !”

- and generally treating the audience like they are 12 year old boys that have been held back in kindergarden

Gah !

By: Bloggosaurus vs. the Science-TV Megalodon « Sapien Games

Bloggosaurus vs. the Science-TV Megalodon « Sapien Games — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 02:28:08 +0000

[...] Zimmer relays a heartening story about a little science-blogger that could. Matt Wedel, a paleontologist, [...]

By: Tim Vickers

Tim Vickers — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:09:55 +0000

Chris Norris is perfectly correct, cut out the middlemen and write about your science on Wikipedia. About 4,000 to 7,000 people per day read the Wikipedia dinosaur article. That will be far more people than ever see this crappy documentary.

By: johnk

johnk — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:49:50 +0000

Jeff,
Using my way-back machine, I really liked the Bell Telephone science shows of the late 1950s and early 1960s. The hour-long episodes “Hemo the Magnificent” and “Gateways to the Mind” (on the senses) stand out in my memory. I think these represented major commitments by the sponsors and Hollywood studios to science documentaries. They were broadcast on network TV, and I remember watching some of those in my middle-school classroom. I’ve recently seen a few of them on youtube, and they hold up well. They had great production values, nice ways of presenting science, and good accuracy (from what I can tell). It’s fun to compare the the old animation methods with current techniques. While they didn’t have computer graphics, they used top-level cartoonists who produced catchy animations.

By: Thomas R. Holtz, Jr.

Thomas R. Holtz, Jr. — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:06:19 +0000

Joshua: they did claim that, and indeed “wow”…

My experience with Clash of the Dinos wasn’t anywhere near as bad as Matt’s. I think a lot of what happened can be explained by the fact that during production and post-production the staff did not interact with the experts in terms of fact-checking and the like. (In part this was due because of major changes in the production team after filming had been done: many of the people who edited and wrote the narration for the project were not even with it last winter when we talking heads got filmed!)

In contrast, shows where the production team does vet ideas to their subject experts during the process tend to wind up with more accurate products (surprise, surprise!)

By: Joshua Zelinsky

Joshua Zelinsky — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 04:21:44 +0000

Unfortunately, it looks like there’s a lot of other junk that isn’t going to get corrected that was in the show. From Wedel’s original piece: ” There is no evidence that Quetzalcoatlus could see dinosaur pee with its ultraviolet vision, or that a herd of hadrosaurs could knock over a predator with their concentrated infrasound blasts.” I’m hoping that the second one is him exaggerating. Because if they really tried to claim that on the show… wow.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:52:31 +0000

Carl, Could you (or anyone reading this) recommend some really good science documentaries that you think got things right? Thanks, Jeff [CZ: Jeff: I was the science editor for this 2009 show about the evolution of eyes. When I told the producers about stuff that was wrong, they figured out creative ways to make it right. It may not delve into the full details that experts on the evolution of eyes deal in, but I think it got across some of the key points well. And at least one scientist involved in the process was happy with the experience. Obviously, given my involvement, you have to take this with a hefty grain of salt, so, as always, judge for yourself.]

By: Laelaps

Laelaps — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:42:56 +0000

Thanks for this, Carl. As you probably saw in my post, in the aftermath of this kerfuffle I am left thinking (to quote David Byrne) “How do I work this?” Scientists obviously want to participate in helping production companies making the best shows possible, but they also want to protect themselves from the shenanigans that went on with Clash of the Dinosaurs. As I said in the post, the fact that there is high turnover in tv production companies does not seem to help since who you started working with may not be the person who ends up deciding what goes in the show (so all those good ideas you seemed to agree on go out the window…).

There is no easy answer, and frankly it is hard to see how scientists can level the playing field. Documentary production is a business, after all, and given the current state of things I guess we should be glad that production companies are still consulting with scientists. Still, what happened to Matt is not a one time thing and has been a consistent problem for scientists who have participated in interviews, tv shows, etc. Contrary to many of the books that came out this year, there is more involved in fixing out science communication problems than getting scientists to seem hipper while on screen.

By: razib

razib — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:42:12 +0000

remember when shelley batts got that creepy letter? collective action can work.