Speaking of the spill and your audience, Linda Winslow told The Associated Press that the NewsHour’s coverage of the spill, “proved there was definitely an audience for this kind of story.” And, in the same piece, host Jim Lehrer said, “There’s evidence that we’re delivering a new audience for the NewsHour.” Who do you think your audience is going to be, and can science continue to bring in new viewers?
I’ve been digesting the latest Pew study on media consumption in the U.S. and how people have basically turned news into a kind of social thing that they participate in. It’s fascinating, and one of the things that warmed the cockles of my soul was that when you ask people what they believe is the most underreported story, it is science and technology. That study was talking to people who are actively engaged in news online—which is to say a younger, more participatory audience that expects to be following me on Twitter and Facebook, to know what stories I’m working on, and to have an ongoing dialogue with me.
I think if we let that community know that we’re out here and that we’re doing stories on a subject matter that it feels it’s not getting enough of, those people will beat a path to our doorstep. Because the honest to goodness truth is that mainstream news organizations—the twenty four hour cable news—don’t cover science because it’s hard to turn complicated scientific concepts into stories that are engaging and relatable to people. You’ve got scientists and engineers who are not known for their communication skills, you have subjects that are a little bit esoteric at times, and it requires some extra work. It’s a lot simpler to throw on a couple of pundits and have them bat around the Tea Party for eight or ten minutes on cable news. It’s a lot cheaper and it’s a proven ratings winner. It’s the same reason why local news operations chase bodies on the streets instead of going to City Hall and actually covering some bona-fide issues that are more relevant to the people in the community. It actually takes time to do the reporting if you go to City Hall. If you go shoot the body, it’s simple. It’s easy, it’s done, and you’ve filled up your time.
So I’m a little bit of a cynic, as you can tell. There is a whole disenfranchised audience out there that I’ve been trying to reach through alternate means, but it’s nice to have an audience—a smart audience—already there that is going to be watching, and we’ll bring in some more people. Look at the ratings—1.1 million people watch that show every evening. In the cable news universe, you would kill for that number.
In terms of your coverage, I have to ask about a couple possible conflicts here. You are the chair NASA’s Education and Public Outreach Committee and the NewsHour’s new science unit is receiving funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Will you be able to cover the U.S. space program or HHMI at the NewsHour?
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