Well, we’re pondering this issue even as we speak because my role at the National Advisory Council [which comprises nine committees, including Education and Pubic Outreach] is to advise strictly on education and public outreach issues. I don’t get involved in policy because, you know, I’m not a rocket scientist. But, having said that, as an advisor to NASA, it could be confused and create the appearance of a conflict, so we have to work through that. The issue for me is, I tell NASA how to better tell its story. I’m not sure if that’s a direct conflict if I’m doing a story about the next mission they’re going to launch to Venus or whatever, or about a shuttle launch. Now, if I were advising the NASA administrator about what sort of rockets should replace the shuttle, and how long the space station should stay in orbit and what experiments should be on there, it’s clear that would present a conflict, because if I’m doing a NASA policy story, that’s right in that area. So, we don’t have it figured out just yet. Admittedly, it’s a grey area and right now we don’t have a story that’s forcing us to contend with it. But I’ve had some discussions with Linda Winslow and Jim Lehrer about it to see what we’re comfortable with. I would hate to recuse myself from space stories, but I have also enjoyed my role in trying to help NASA engage the public a little better. So right now, frankly, I’m in the middle of a bit of a quandary.
And HHMI – do you think there’s an issue there?
Well, we’re not going to cover them directly. It would not be good form to get involved in telling the story of a specific funder. I think it’s a much more clear-cut situation—as opposed to the one with NASA—when a funder is linked to a story. But, you know, will biomedical research be an area we discuss? Of course. Will we be trotting over to the HHMI to see what they’re working on? We can’t do that, obviously.
Speaking of your widely acclaimed coverage of the space program, after PBS’s announcement last week, the Knight Science Journalism Tracker’s Charlie Petit griped that you were so good at it, you “got plunked in the anchor’s chair a lot.” Obviously, he’d like to see you wear the reporter hat first. How do you plan to strike a balance between interviews and analysis and in the studio versus chasing down stories on the beat?
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