A couple of weeks ago, I attended a day conference which aimed at bringing together the science community with the news community. Two communities which do not necessarily have a high degree of overlap. Hence, the massive need for science journals. If the news publicized scientific findings, then maybe the content viewers wanted would change over time. That is my personal opinion as a scientist.
The day was very informative, to say the least. Overall, the goal was to teach scientists how to 'kick start' their science (research) by learning how to talk too publicly elected officials. I could write an entire series about the whole day -- which was filled with talks and activities. Instead, I would like to highlight a couple of overarching issues which cast a large shadow over the rest of the content.
That is how stories are sorted to be published. Further, how stories are chosen for a given issue/print of the week.
Mass Shooting VS. Science: NO
During the late morning, the Chief Content Officer for channel 7 news in Los Angeles -- "ABC7" spoke about the ever-changing news cycle. In the discussion, he elaborated on the specific techniques which are used (metrics) for deciding whether a story makes the news or not. I was surprised to find out that the only hour out of a 24-hour cycle during which there is no news is from 2:00 - 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
Turns out that the content editors aggregate their stories from a variety of sources: mail, email, social media, and data analytics. The first three are not entirely surprising given the popularity of the delivery methods. Social media offers up to date real-time analysis of stories. Instant feedback to stories published on the ABC7 Facebook page, ABC7 Twitter page, or ABC7 Instagram. These results/comments are fed back to the senior content editor along with his team to decide where to go (i.e., what new stories to search for/publish) next in the news world.
Makes sense, right?
Go with the content which is trending or soaring on the social media/internet landscape. Right?
If I were working in the newsroom, I suppose the choice is obvious. Especially, given the amount of real-time data arising out of a story. Social media, along with the entire digital domain, has changed how news is analyzed, presented, and consumed by the corporations and consumer.
His take-home message was that he is interested in accumulating (collecting) stories from a variety of sources. Send him one. He stated that overall, the news channel still relies on 'scoops' from a variety of sources. That point was a significant part of his presentation and repeated by his assistant reiterated during a Q & A session.
What was not apparent to me but arose during the Q & A session was the method of how the stories are chosen to run in a given news cycle. The process by which content editors in newsrooms decide the worthiness of a story has fascinated me over time.
First, a reporter from the Los Angeles Times was asked how she chooses stories for a given week. She stated very bluntly that she looks for the importance of the story. How is this story going to change humanity? Why is the world interested in this story? What is the significance of the story now? Reporters refer to these questions combined as the 'hook' of the story.
She was concerned about the fact that when a scientist is contacted, she is often disappointed to hear that the researcher cannot provide a 'hook' for her story. My initial response was that scientists are not in charge of creating a 'hook' for their research.
After stewing on the ideas over the last week, I do believe that scientists should be able to explain the importance of their research to the public/news. Although, whether that story is super-important or eye-catching is another problem. Namely, the issue of the reporter, not the scientist.
As I mentioned earlier, another panelist was the assistant to the Chief Content Officer at ABC7. She was asked by yours truly the following question:
Why does science not appear in the news more often? Why don't you add more science content to the news cycle and look for the response? Say, a profile of what a scientist looks like along with a brief summary of their research?
She started to answer the question by spreading her hands out like a table in front of herself. With one hand she had a single sheet of paper representing a story about a Mass Shooting. Whereas with the other hand, she had a story on the latest scientific discovery. She placed both sheets down on the table in front of her to inspect side by side.
She answered that when stories are side by side, a decision is made on what to incorporate into the news cycle. WHAT???????
My mind was blown away.
I could not believe that a story about the latest scientific discovery has to compete with a story about a Mass Shooting? Does that make any sense to anybody reading this blog post?
Wow!
The two stories are entirely different.
Why would a news channel show the 'Pet of the week' to be adopted at the end of a segment, yet make science compete with a Mass Shooting?
Or make a weekly series called "What does a scientist look like? What do they do?"
I am still trying hard to wrap my head around the concept that the news does not separate stories in terms of content. What arises at the moment is compared head to head. Amazing and unfair.
For those of us who practice the profession of science, the process is constant rather than sporadic. Even if a discovery is made. The development has many small findings which emerge to make significant developments in science. That is, in terms of daily effort by professional scientists who get up and work every day to push the boundary of science forward.
Not every discovery is glamorous. In fact, many small findings add up to significant development. To me, reporting on the additive (small components) of science by the news would actually help change the public's perception of science for the better.
Are stellar scientists created overnight? How about over 4 years at a University? No. Science is a practice which takes time. Of course, that is not to say that people who are interested in science cannot understand and enjoy science without having to work endless hours in a laboratory.
Enjoying and understanding science does not mean continually practicing science research every day.
Therefore, comparing a scientific discovery to a Mass Shooting is not right. Nor is trying to make the scientific discovery more important than the development actually is. This blown out of proportion reporting not only confuses the public by instilling incorrect aspects regarding scientific research. The public tends to think that only super smart (genius) people perform scientific research, which is not true at all.
The old saying: Research is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. A daily effort is made for discovery. A Mass Shooting is a local tragedy to which no other innovation compares too.
The news corporations need to change their model by which a story is chosen and placed in a prioritized category for air time in a given news cycle. Stories should appear based on unique content. Viewers need guidance into what is out there in the world. That is why most people (except for me) have 400 channels in their house. Variety is the new norm.
If the news cycle continues to be made up of popular 'eye-catching' news only (i.e., Mass Shootings), then there will be no time for scientific discoveries. Further, if Chief Content Officers do not decide to give time to introducing scientific developments, then a greater gap will grow. A difference between scientists and members of the public. In between which is the paywall provided by the publishers of the top science journals. Science will continue to reside behind a virtual paywall by the publishers of the top science journals. And that is sad, considering that the scientific research which needs to be reported is being paid by taxpayer money -- U.S. Citizens tax money. I think that we deserve to hear about scientific discoveries along with other important news.
Related Blog Posts:
1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts
2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!
Turns out that the content editors aggregate their stories from a variety of sources: mail, email, social media, and data analytics. The first three are not entirely surprising given the popularity of the delivery methods. Social media offers up to date real-time analysis of stories. Instant feedback to stories published on the ABC7 Facebook page, ABC7 Twitter page, or ABC7 Instagram. These results/comments are fed back to the senior content editor along with his team to decide where to go (i.e., what new stories to search for/publish) next in the news world.
Makes sense, right?
Go with the content which is trending or soaring on the social media/internet landscape. Right?
If I were working in the newsroom, I suppose the choice is obvious. Especially, given the amount of real-time data arising out of a story. Social media, along with the entire digital domain, has changed how news is analyzed, presented, and consumed by the corporations and consumer.
His take-home message was that he is interested in accumulating (collecting) stories from a variety of sources. Send him one. He stated that overall, the news channel still relies on 'scoops' from a variety of sources. That point was a significant part of his presentation and repeated by his assistant reiterated during a Q & A session.
What was not apparent to me but arose during the Q & A session was the method of how the stories are chosen to run in a given news cycle. The process by which content editors in newsrooms decide the worthiness of a story has fascinated me over time.
First, a reporter from the Los Angeles Times was asked how she chooses stories for a given week. She stated very bluntly that she looks for the importance of the story. How is this story going to change humanity? Why is the world interested in this story? What is the significance of the story now? Reporters refer to these questions combined as the 'hook' of the story.
She was concerned about the fact that when a scientist is contacted, she is often disappointed to hear that the researcher cannot provide a 'hook' for her story. My initial response was that scientists are not in charge of creating a 'hook' for their research.
After stewing on the ideas over the last week, I do believe that scientists should be able to explain the importance of their research to the public/news. Although, whether that story is super-important or eye-catching is another problem. Namely, the issue of the reporter, not the scientist.
As I mentioned earlier, another panelist was the assistant to the Chief Content Officer at ABC7. She was asked by yours truly the following question:
Why does science not appear in the news more often? Why don't you add more science content to the news cycle and look for the response? Say, a profile of what a scientist looks like along with a brief summary of their research?
She started to answer the question by spreading her hands out like a table in front of herself. With one hand she had a single sheet of paper representing a story about a Mass Shooting. Whereas with the other hand, she had a story on the latest scientific discovery. She placed both sheets down on the table in front of her to inspect side by side.
She answered that when stories are side by side, a decision is made on what to incorporate into the news cycle. WHAT???????
My mind was blown away.
I could not believe that a story about the latest scientific discovery has to compete with a story about a Mass Shooting? Does that make any sense to anybody reading this blog post?
Wow!
The two stories are entirely different.
Why would a news channel show the 'Pet of the week' to be adopted at the end of a segment, yet make science compete with a Mass Shooting?
Or make a weekly series called "What does a scientist look like? What do they do?"
I am still trying hard to wrap my head around the concept that the news does not separate stories in terms of content. What arises at the moment is compared head to head. Amazing and unfair.
Science Is Constant, Not Sporadic
For those of us who practice the profession of science, the process is constant rather than sporadic. Even if a discovery is made. The development has many small findings which emerge to make significant developments in science. That is, in terms of daily effort by professional scientists who get up and work every day to push the boundary of science forward.
Not every discovery is glamorous. In fact, many small findings add up to significant development. To me, reporting on the additive (small components) of science by the news would actually help change the public's perception of science for the better.
Are stellar scientists created overnight? How about over 4 years at a University? No. Science is a practice which takes time. Of course, that is not to say that people who are interested in science cannot understand and enjoy science without having to work endless hours in a laboratory.
Enjoying and understanding science does not mean continually practicing science research every day.
Therefore, comparing a scientific discovery to a Mass Shooting is not right. Nor is trying to make the scientific discovery more important than the development actually is. This blown out of proportion reporting not only confuses the public by instilling incorrect aspects regarding scientific research. The public tends to think that only super smart (genius) people perform scientific research, which is not true at all.
The old saying: Research is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. A daily effort is made for discovery. A Mass Shooting is a local tragedy to which no other innovation compares too.
The news corporations need to change their model by which a story is chosen and placed in a prioritized category for air time in a given news cycle. Stories should appear based on unique content. Viewers need guidance into what is out there in the world. That is why most people (except for me) have 400 channels in their house. Variety is the new norm.
If the news cycle continues to be made up of popular 'eye-catching' news only (i.e., Mass Shootings), then there will be no time for scientific discoveries. Further, if Chief Content Officers do not decide to give time to introducing scientific developments, then a greater gap will grow. A difference between scientists and members of the public. In between which is the paywall provided by the publishers of the top science journals. Science will continue to reside behind a virtual paywall by the publishers of the top science journals. And that is sad, considering that the scientific research which needs to be reported is being paid by taxpayer money -- U.S. Citizens tax money. I think that we deserve to hear about scientific discoveries along with other important news.
Related Blog Posts:
1) Dimensional Analysis Of Statistics And Large Numbers - Index Of Blog Posts
2) Science Topics, Thoughts, and Parameters Regarding Science, Politics, And The Environment!
No comments:
Post a Comment