The extensive coverage of Stephen Hawking’s seventieth birthday on January 8 focused on the physicist’s status as the world’s most famous living scientist. But journalists largely avoided commenting on the major force that created his celebrity: the media themselves.
The build-up began in earnest last week when Hawking gave an exclusive interview to New Scientist in which he discussed the most exciting development in physics over the course of his career (finding evidence that the universe expanded rapidly after the Big Bang), his biggest scientific blunder (thinking that information was destroyed in black holes), and his advice to young physicists (formulate an original idea that opens a new field).
But none of these comments was as newsworthy, seemingly, as the response he gave to a question about what he thinks about most during the day: “Women. They are a complete mystery.” This quote was chosen as the lead in stories about Hawking by, among others, CBS news, The Guardian, The Telegraph, and The Huffington Post.
This focus on Hawking-as-personality illuminates a recurring theme in his public life: that his fame—his reputation as “the brightest star in the scientific universe”—has as much, and perhaps more, to do with his media-created popular appeal as with his scientific achievements.
Fame is not a result of some innate characteristic. There must be portrayal through the media. And at the very least, famous figures are complicit in the construction of their celebrity. But while coverage of behind-the-scenes image-making is routine in political journalism, there was an almost complete lack of similarly-angled coverage about Hawking.
Yet the New Scientist interview was not the first time that Hawking seems to have tailored his comments to garner journalistic interest. Throughout his career, he and his publishers have demonstrated a keen understanding of the dynamics of publicity.
The most-remembered part of his bestselling popular cosmology book, A Brief History of Time, was the last line, where he wrote that if scientists find a grand, unifying theory of physics, then “it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason—for then we would know the mind of God.” (He later wrote that he almost cut the last line, but that doing so might have halved his sales.)
The promotion of A Brief History was heavily Hawking-centered. His photograph appeared on the coverage of most editions and part of the blurb for the 1988 hardback American edition, for example, read: “From the vantage point of the wheelchair where he has spent the last twenty years trapped by Lou Gehrig’s disease, Professor Hawking has transformed our view of the universe.”
His last coauthored book, The Grand Design, gained enormous amounts of publicity with its argument that many universes were created out of nothing after the Big Bang, arising naturally from physical laws, without the need for a creator to account for the origin of the universe. More coverage followed last May when he told The Guardian that there was no heaven. He said: “That is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”
Some coverage of Hawking’s seventieth birthday did comment on his understanding of journalism’s attraction to charismatic individuals. Laura Miller at Salon reviewed the new biography by Kitty Ferguson, Stephen Hawking: An Unfettered Mind, writing that the physicist’s personal struggles cannot be separated from his fame. She added that his references to religion could indicate “Hawking knows how just to tweak the public’s interest in him as an oracular figure.”
In another piece dedicated to the reasons for Hawking’s cultural prominence, Kathy Sykes, professor of sciences and sciences at the University of Bristol, UK, said his fame, like his science, was multi-dimensional.
For her, his research was field-changing. A Brief History of Time stirred imaginations and Hawking’s appearances in entertainment media—on Star Trek, The Simpsons, and Pink Floyd’s Division Bell album, for example—contributed to his mystique, but, above all, his humanity and courage in living with the debilitating effects of Lou Gehrig’s disease captured the public imagination.
It is this image of Hawking that has overridden all others—the impression of him, in the words of one journalist, as “a butterfly mind trapped in a diving-bell body.”

I don't know that I agree that fame is not a personal characteristic. The media catalyzes fame, it doesn't create it. It's probably more fair to say that Hawking's fame came from his skill as a writer (the same way it has for Brian Greene and Carl Sagan and Neil Tyson) and, more importantly, from his compelling personal story. (He's confined to a wheelchair by ALS, but he can roam the cosmos in his mind.)
The media didn't create these narratives. And we propogated them not out of any intent, but because it was easy and readers responded. It pains me to say this as a science writer, but I don't think we really get to choose which of our profile subjects become famous.
#1 Posted by Matthew Herper, CJR on Wed 11 Jan 2012 at 02:06 PM
Just a data point, I started to read Hawking's A Brief History Of Time after it had been out for months and much commented on by the press. I was enthralled by the link exposed in the book between thermodynamics and black holes, Hawking-Beckenstein black-hole radiation and all that, and I found myself quite angry that the many reviews I had seen all failed to discuss that part, focusing instead on the treatment of the Big Bang - the other more "(a)theological" part of the book.
I was in fact so angry that in silent protest, I pointedly avoided to read these chapters promoted by a press so obviously vassal to a definition of "interesting" that is unrelated to physics.
#2 Posted by Elveto Drozo, CJR on Thu 12 Jan 2012 at 09:10 AM
I was kind of stunned to find out that one of the creators of C (maybe Linux also?) died within days of Steven Jobs. Of course, I can't remember his name. He just wasn't in the news. But really, whose products did more to change the world?
#3 Posted by Kat, CJR on Thu 12 Jan 2012 at 01:00 PM
I'm sorry, but this article is just laughable. Hawking is a brilliant, warm, and charismatic man with a uniquely inspiring personal story -- and you want credit for creating him? You've got causation reversed. Hawking created you, and any number of science writers who made a career of writing about him.
#4 Posted by Tom T., CJR on Thu 12 Jan 2012 at 11:58 PM
I reckon Hawking is overrated. He claims the universe could have created itself but how does something that does not exist create itself? He also supports the concept of a multiverse. Imagine that - infinite universes where everything that can happen happens. Are you comfortable with the idea that somewhere in another world you a pathological murderer, a violent rapist or a child molester? What a nightmare?
#5 Posted by Philip Maguire, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 05:58 AM
@5 Philip Maguire
I reckon Hawking is overrated. He claims the universe could have created itself but how does something that does not exist create itself?
Maybe you should read one of his books before asking this interminably repeated, astonishingly jejune question yet again.
#6 Posted by JG, CJR on Sat 14 Jan 2012 at 05:46 PM
The wider question is whether science journalism is about hard-nosed reporting and critical analysis, or whether it is there to explain things. I have never considered it a particularly hard-nosed genre; it seems most science journalists believe themselves to be mouthpieces of the scientific community, there to explain and entertain and fill us with wonder about the world as it is revealed through the lens of science.
Call it Gee-whizz journalism.
#7 Posted by Carl, CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 02:32 PM
The thing about transcendent fame and science (particularly as it relates to physics) is that it generally comes with a face attached. And that's because most ordinary people don't understand the arguments for the concepts being elucidated. And that’s because they don't comprehend the language the argument is being made in, which is mathematics. Ergo, what you regularly get is a physicist whose visage comes to represent, not just some scientific field or another, but SCIENCE!!!. At one point in time it was Newton. And then absolutely Einstein and now (again probably) Hawking. The faces and voices and lives of these people become iconic not because of the media, but because the general public wants what they are told is important but can’t truly grasp to become incarnate. So in terms of science reporting in 2011 there is a funny coda or two to the above piece. The first is: If the instantly recognizable face of 21st century science isn't Hawking, who is it? And the second is, if you don't think Hawking is worthy of being SCIENCE!!!, how would a new candidate be selected? If it were me I would suggest a mash up of all The Big Bang Theory actors with the aim of producing an image of a handsome/pretty bi-gendered nerd.
#8 Posted by Stephen Strauss, CJR on Sun 15 Jan 2012 at 03:49 PM
@kat - Dennis Ritchie. No, he did not have a hand in linux, except in the sense that he wrote much of the original unix os into C, which enabled unix to move onto any machine that supported a c compiler.
So in that sense linux, FreeBSD, MacOS, Solaris, and every systems programmer who can now express themselves in a portable logical language - separated from the registers, instruction pointers, gotos you find in assembly - owes a huge bunch to Ritchie.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Mon 16 Jan 2012 at 01:50 AM