Science and the media

Please respond

File: 1468446032306.jpg (561KB, 1180x1721px) Image search: [Google]

561KB, 1180x1721px

>>8480137

>>8480137
No I want to study physic. I don't want an additional bullshit class about communication.

>>8480180
Fair enough. Though if you decide to stay in science, you'll probably notice at some point that media coverage will get you more grant money.

>>8480184
No it wont
Now go back to >>>/r/eddit

>>8480186
Kek, stay assburger. You'll find out the hard way then.

>>8480137

In undergrad we had a mandatory course that basically was called "Social Implications of Technology from Your Field", where this would have fit perfectly.

Instead it was a sociologist rambling on about how we're infringing on everybody's rights. In one unit, he had invited a feminist to talk about how and why women deserve more help and support than men in STEM. It was pretty retarded, but thankfully it was before all that full retard tumblr shit.

I think there's ample oportunity, and actually a great idea. But this doesn't become relevant until MSc or PhD level. At which point you no longer have courses like that.

Although a conference/talk/workshop for like a day or two might be the best format.

>>8480137

>Should scientists get more media training?

No, people go to PR schools for that.

>>8480214
>But this doesn't become relevant until MSc or PhD level.
Agreed.
> a conference/talk/workshop for like a day or two might be the best format
I agree with that too. I'm not saying every student should have like an 8 week course or something like tat, but making people aware at least of the very basics of dealing with the press would be beneficial to science, I think.

>>8480228
>No
Can you at least try to explain why not?

>>8480137
Honestly, I would recommend that every science major should take a public speaking class. The reasons for this are twofold: the autists in our ranks learn basic speaking skills and coping mechanisms; the more advanced students hone their skills, and learn a lot about effective rhetoric and how to communicate science to laymen e.g. my first speech was over early experiments demonstrating the curvature of the earth, and my teacher showed me a lot about how to explain the concepts behind it in an easy to understand manner. I took one my freshman year, and afterwards my social anxiety decreased greatly.

The media should get more science training. Except replace "more science training" with "herded into gas chambers."

The media is not interested in telling the truth. They're interested in getting clicks. They're irredeemable.

In my opinion, science reporters should focus more on accurately reporting rather than creating sensations. I find from my experience that whatever you say, they still try twisting it to get more readers. It's best if the scientist can directly approach the public, so many people have started hiring PR people to help them make simple video abstracts that can be uploaded to youtube and understood by anyone.
I feel these trends are better than every scientist having to study how to handle the modern media.

>>8480249
>The media should get more science training.
Fair point, but it goes both ways I think. Ultimately, a large proportion of science funding is public money, so we are accountable to the public. If we don't keep people interested in what we're doing, then funds will dry up eventually.
>They're interested in getting clicks.
So are journals, except their clicks come in the form of citations. Science that is appealing to high ranking journals is mostly also appealing to the media.

>>8480256
That's a pretty good point, actually. More efficient too.

What really needs to happen is press offices in universities need to be staffed by people with at least some grasp of science. Too often is a press release published that just has nothing to do with the paper, sometimes they're just utterly wrong.

>>8480256
nice! i approve. of course you need to be able to afford a PR person.

>>8480137
>to sacrifice accuracy for simplicity
I'm pretty sure some scientist went for the simpler explanation until they slipped into pop-sci tier, which /sci/ likes to shit on a lot.

Aside from popsci level though, of course a journalist will be "dumb" with respect to the field that you specialized in, because they specialized in journalism. So, you should be able to give a simpler explanation for "dumb" people. Expecting a journalist to fully understand it might be the wrong setup there (another reason to get your own PR-dude/dudette)