So, what I want to do is look at big buckets of issues. I’m very interested in robotics technology. I’m very interested in nanotechnology. I’m interested in STEM [science, technology, engineering, and mathematics] education issues and how this nation addresses a huge problem we have in a lack of expertise among science teachers. I’m interested in the technological shift that is making newspapers and books more or less obsolete—I’m sitting here looking at my iPad as I talk to you—and how that profoundly changes the way we all process and learn. So, those are like big buckets of issues, and what we have to do now is figure out how to fill up eight minutes on that, and find the right people and subject matter. We’ve had our initial story meetings. The NewsHour is interested in a lot of things that I’m interested in, which is always nice, and frankly, stuff that I had a hard time selling at CNN.
So, I’m heartened that they’re willing to take some chances on stories that might on the surface look like, “Hmm, I wonder if that’s going to be interesting television.” I guess they have a little bit of faith in me to make that work for them. So, that puts a little more pressure on me, but that’s what we’re doing right now. I’m going to be working with my long-time producer at CNN, Kate Tobin, who left the day I did at CNN. We’ve actually worked together now for eighteen years, covering any number of science stories. She really knows science, and studied biology in school. I’m of course a history major who is just enthused about it. So we’re a good team, and we are going through our wish list right now, trying to make these big buckets of ideas into stories with a nice little narrative. My production company will actually go out, hire the crews, and we’ll do the production component of it. Obviously, the NewsHour is going to be doing all the script approvals and so forth, and we have the ability to tap into the resources of their staff. So we’re going to be doing a lot of stuff. Everything we’ll be doing will have a very robust web component, as every organization does these days, but the NewsHour is pushing very hard in that realm right now. So, it’s good. I feel like I’ve got a little bit of independence to seek out some of that cool things that interest me, but I’ve got a nice supportive safety net there of people that are going to help make these stories work.
Is the plan to produce one of these eight-minute segments for each nightly broadcast?
No. We have agreed to do twelve pieces for them over the next nine months for this first round, and how those will be released will depend on news pegs. For example, on November 1 they’re going to launch a robot to the international space station on the shuttle, and that’s a great opportunity to do that robotics piece that I’ve been dying to do. So, that is probably going to be the first story out of the gate.
The NewsHour wants us to stay close to the news curve and that’s appropriate, and obviously Kate and I, with all our time at CNN, know how to do that. So, we can’t be too indulgent—off in a corner that doesn’t relate to the news flow at all. But the beauty of it is that there’s a lot of stories that we run into each day, whether it’s climate change, or STEM education, or vaccines, or the BP oil spill—they all have a very compelling and important science component, which really isn’t being told, and that’s the opportunity we have to inform our audience.
Earlier this year, I sat in a seminar and listened to one of the few remaining science reporters at his national paper spell out the doomsday prophesy for science reporting in this country. The most popular science-related blog is a climate change denial site, he said.
I'm so glad to see NewsHour team up with Mr. O'Brien in an effort to turn the tide. I'm among those 20-something readers and watchers who want to have these complicated ideas explained in simple ways (call it the Robert Krulwich-brand of science story).
I want less of the, as that seasoned science reporter put it back in April, 'reworked press releases about dinosaurs that people will click on.' With the NewsHour's recent success online, I think there's great potential to find new ways to keep viewers engaged even past the eight-minute piece.
Best of luck.
#1 Posted by David Klatt, CJR on Tue 5 Oct 2010 at 12:07 PM
Enouraging but disturbing story.
The dumbing down of America, followed by it's media, started with the "boob tube's" coming into our homes with it's advertising, ratings and one syllable words and ideas. We have "progressed" to the likes of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, plus Dick Cheney, et al , amongst the round and round circus parade of American intellect and insight, who spew out the concept of "fair and balanced news."
Science, burdened with three four and - gasp! - five syllable words - and IDEAS and CONCEPTS rather than something to be viewed and then bought -suffers greatly in that few if any female scientists live colorful lives, have long legs and several husbands or divorce extensively. "Scientific" males of course, wear funny clothes, drive old cars, and actually listen to other people when they talk.
There are of course, a variety of ways to get the public's attention re: the very serious problems regarding the challenges our world and the universe presents us. Unfortunately, since few if any sponsors feel spending ad money on science programs attracts their typical TV target consumers: under thirty, caucasian, a beer drinker, well..., just fill in the rest!
The answer? Make it a law that each film and DVD will have a 1 to 3 minute "science update" , Madison Avenue slick!, that will inform a variety of ages and backgrounds as to our environmental dangers, future plans, ideas, funding, etc.
Hey, we sell cars, booze, bra's, sports and soap operas, why not our environment, what it is, problems why, the dangers, and progress on saving our very existence? With a billion year old universe we may have only 3 to 400 years remaining of sun okygen and TV?!
Well?
#2 Posted by John , CJR on Wed 27 Oct 2010 at 07:23 PM
INCREDIBLY ironic how the above commenters point to a climate change denial site and Glenn Beck is somehow being an indication of the dumbing-down of the media and society, when it turns out the growing bias of the mainstream media and its inability to tell the complete story anymore is exactly what causes intelligent people to seek out alternative sources of news. On the topic of climate change, I seriously doubt that either commenter could show information cited at the 'denier site' or at Beck's or any other Fox News program is flat out refuted. Contradicted, maybe, not refuted.
And then we have Miles O'Brien. Fair and balanced? I think not, as we need only look at his decidedly biased CNN presentation in 2005 called "Melting Point" ( http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/27/cp.01.html ), where anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan - who turns out NOT to be a Pulitzer winner despite widespread descriptions to the contrary, including the front of his own hardcover book "Boiling Point" - was allowed to make unsupported accusations against skeptic scientists, the basis of which were unquestioned by O'Brien. Gelbspan is infamous for pinning his entire accusation against skeptic scientists on a phrase taken from a 1991-era coal industry memo. Did O'Brien question why the memo itself is NEVER seen in its full context in any publication or web site that quotes the phrase, or ask about the claim on Gelbspan's book? No, arguably an example of journalistic malfeasance of epic proportions on his part and on the part of the mainstream media around the world..... including the PBS NewsHour, which never featured a skeptic scientist on its program once since 1996, to offer rebuttal of IPCC scientist guests. If the above commenters take issue with this, saying the NewsHour ignores corrupt skeptic scientists, I would challenge them to find any other investigative reporter who does NOT cite Gelbspan as a source of information, and who can independently corroborate the corruption allegation.
A failure to do so would clearly indicate a problem with the mainstream media and the NewsHour.
#3 Posted by RC, CJR on Wed 9 Feb 2011 at 02:20 PM