Ayelet Baram-Sabri analyzes the ambivalent relationship between the scientists and the media.
Eilat Baram-Sabri
Scientists who tell each other about their experiences in the media are similar to patients who compare surgical scars, wrote Rae Goodell in her thesis for the book "The Visible Scientists". In Israel, where making claims against the media is a popular sport, every conversation between scientists about science in the Israeli media opens, continues and ends with the laziness, ignorance and stupidity of the reporters, the editors and the publishers who employ them, and of course also the public that needs them. The compilers will even point out the fault of the education system in the cultural collapse and the general loss of direction, which causes the scant and deteriorating coverage of the field of science in the Israeli media. It is understood that the reporters (and their training in science), the editors' priorities (and their attitudes towards science), the ratings culture (and the supreme word "sell ads!"), and the dismal state of the education system (and the illiterate citizens it produces) have a part in the situation. What is surprising is that, according to the speakers, there is one player in the system who has no share in the blame, and that is, of course, the Israeli scientific community itself.
In my many conversations with researchers, I have heard time and time again a variation on the argument "And you shall not sit in the seat of the Tzim": as long as the media continues in its devious ways and produces such unworthy products, we refuse to take part in the game. It is not impossible that if the media changes its ways, we will positively consider giving her an interview in the future. What is it similar to? That the Israeli national team will condition its participation in the World Cup on painting the grass blue and white. What do you know, they will probably manage without us.
"Do not want? No need!", claim some of the scientists, and do not return a call to the university spokesperson. But the presence of science in the Israeli public discourse is not a gift that generous scientists give to ignorant citizens, but a vital need first and foremost for the academy itself. The public can do well without knowing how to determine the three-dimensional spatial structure of a protein, but academia will have a very difficult time functioning in a public environment that opposes the purchase of a million-dollar magnetic resonance device. It will be difficult for biologists to continue their work in a country that allows clerics to dictate policy, and animal experiments will be more difficult to digest for a public that has not been exposed to the results of medical research. Apart from practical needs, tax money finances a significant part of university budgets, so that scientists have a moral obligation to return at least part of the knowledge they have acquired to the general public who paid for it.
So what should be done? Learn the rules of the media game, get off the fence and start giving yourself up. "It won't work," arguments from several past conversations keep coming back to me, "this is not the role of scientists, they are not paid to be interviewed, and this does not help them advance. They are measured by the quality of the research, and that's it." So that's it, that it needs to be changed, I say, receiving a shocked look in response. vary? we? The same people who explain without batting an eyelid how the media has to take on the role of an educator (which it does not want), hire a scientific editor (which it has no interest or budget to hire), publish news two weeks late just to get Prof. so-and-so who is currently busy writing a proposal Research, to include details and concepts that are understandable only to those who know science in the name of accuracy, and in general to stop being mass media and start being Scientific American - those people are not ready to accept the idea that the scientific community needs to change as well.
We need to change the tone of disdain that accompanies every reference to the representation of science in the mass media. "Scientific Yedioth" is not a derogatory name. It is the place where people from the settlement can read (if they are given the opportunity and if they want to) about the innovations of science from the country and the world. The difference between the news in the news and the original article is not only a consequence of poor mediation, but of adapting the information to a broad audience, lacking prior knowledge and usually lacking prior interest in the field. The link to everyday life, to health, to the future is intended to interest the potential readers in the news and allow them to understand its meaning for their lives or for their understanding of the world. Therefore "a complete skeleton of a mid-Eocene primate found in Germany" is not a good headline, while "mammal fossil may be the link between us and the apes" is.
Another thing that needs to be changed is to uproot the notion that those who choose to communicate with the public do so only because they have nothing better to do. Those who choose to communicate with the public invest their time and energy in an important cause that serves both society and academia, and this endeavor should be supported in every way. The idea that "excessive communication" harms a candidate for promotion is the same as the idea that outstanding lecturers should be punished because they probably invest too much in teaching.
We need to change the norm according to which only famous professors are allowed to talk to the media, something that creates in the viewers and readers the feeling that science is a profession reserved for fair-haired men only. The idea that a researcher of sugars in cucumbers must not talk about sugars in zucchini should be abandoned - the knowledge that a researcher of sugars in cucumbers has is enough to give the journalist the two lines he needs. There is no need to refer him to a third party, who is currently on sabbatical. You have to internalize the idea that the deadlines the media is dealing with are tomorrow and another hour, and not the end of the spring semester XNUMX. And most of all - the obsessive desire to control the product must be abandoned. Reporters do not want and usually cannot let their interviewees see articles after editing. That's the way it is, and it's a good thing. Most of the press does not deal with intramembrane proteins but with bribes received by public figures, therefore its norms are appropriate for the roles it has to fulfill. She will not change them in our honor, even at the cost of embarrassing mistakes and stupid inaccuracies. It is what it is, and with it we will win.
How will we win? First of all, one must know the enemy and recognize that we are not an enemy, but a tool that can be used to convey our messages to the public. In the "Science in Communication: Theory and Practice" course, for example, which takes place at the Technion, students from all degrees learn about different models for mediating science to the public, meet with science reporters, experience writing a scientific report, interviewing a scientist, speaking in front of an audience and preparing a filmed scientific article, and learn firsthand some The balance between accuracy and detail and clarity and interest is fine.
How will I, a scion of a family of physicists, live in the same subjugation as astrologers and celebrities?
These words, which demonstrate the difficulty of scientists finding themselves in the world of Israeli media, are taken from an amusing but poignant adaptation of Leah Goldberg's "Apartment for Rent" written by Dr. Eilat Baram-Zabri. In March 2009, Baram-Zabari opened the conference she organized at the Technion entitled "Science in Israeli Communication: From Indifference to Speaking" with this song. The conference, which discussed the issues raised by Baram-Sabri in these pages, brought together scientists interested in media and journalists interested in science. The common interest did ensure a good atmosphere, but the discussions held during it only emphasized the gap between the two groups.
While quite a few scientists came back and complained about the quality of scientific reporting in the press, the journalists stood up to them and hurled their own harsh claims at the scientists. One of the highlights of the debate was during the colorful lecture by Dodi Goldman, the science reporter of Yedioth Ahronoth, who tried to describe to the scientists the day-to-day reality in the newsroom of a major newspaper. The main difference between science and the press, according to his theory, stems from the fact that scientists deal with "important" things, while the press is more and more interested in "interesting" topics, ones that will grab the reader and increase the ratings. In conclusion, Goldman said that scientists complain that journalists do not have scientific literacy, but scientists do not have media literacy.
But there were also some suggestions on how to bridge the gap between science and the general public. Oded Nofhi, for example, who is involved in the development of content and formats for television, told how it is possible to create television programs suitable for viewing during peak hours that incorporate scientific topics into the content.
Another means of mediation that came up again and again in the discussions was the Internet and its effect on the future of print journalism. There were many at the conference who claimed that the Internet allows for the first time many scientists to bypass the newspaper systems and directly reach wide audiences, and that in any case the printed press is about to end its life. On the other hand, the members of the media establishment claimed that even if the format changes, and moves from print to electronic media, the mediation of professional journalists will still be required.
The feeling at the end of the fascinating day was that these are two very different cultures, that speak different languages and that a lot of mediation work is needed. It was also impossible to avoid the conclusion that the bulk of the mediation work falls precisely on the shoulders of the scientists.
You can read the scientific version of "apartment for rent" inThe Israeli site for science in communication
42 תגובות
For those who don't even know how to talk, it's to do
And if anyone thinks that a word is meant not to be done, he is not only ignorant, he is the equivalent of the people of the country according to Newton's law... and also follows the rule that two parallel lines never meet...
In short, talking is doing
And those who are religious were told that the world was created with words...
And statements and definitions build theories, laws, and software
Much of the world is built on words and talk and whoever says that talk is not action should think twice because life and death are also in the hand of the tongue.
You don't always have to create a bridge. When the obvious motive of the media is to sell advertisements and ratings, its ability to present truths is limited and science is preoccupied with truths. Good relations between the 2 bodies in our capitalist world means that science will submit to the capitalists and work in the service of the big advertisers and the human instinct to respond to fear and sex.
He is also not supposed to work in the service of your desire to become famous in Ayelet, but according to results and predictability. Anyway, good luck.
In several countries such as England and Australia, media organizations hold short internship programs (about a month and a half) designed for scientists and allowing them to become familiar with the journalistic framework. Is there a chance that such a thing could happen in Israel? If young scientists participate in such programs they will be able to form the bridge.
higgs,
The school really does not provide the 'goods' for all students. And so I repeat - this is where popular science comes in.
------
my new blog - Another science
Right.
A highly recommended book about his life is the book Subtle is the Lord
Michael
By the way, for many years until 1910, as I imagine, Einstein quite abhorred mathematical sophistications that he did not see in them as a significant useful possibility for creating real physical content.
And with all of this he had to deal with Riemann's theory of tensors and Ritchie curvature. to establish the theory of general relativity. The push in this direction for the first time came from his friend Marcel Grossman.
And in the end, the final mathematical polishing of the equations of general relativity was done for the first time by Hilbert, much to the dismay of Einstein, who was afraid that he would be robbed of the right of firsts. However, Hilbert acknowledged Einstein's initial right. He simply did not trust Einstein's mathematical intuition and therefore quickly published the same equations before him.
I agree with you on one point but it is not the important point.
It is true that the breakthroughs come from the few who have it but not from all.
In every generation and every society there are these few, but in societies that do not expose them to science - their "it" is not expressed.
Michael
I know, but the story is beautiful and has a root of truth. His math teacher Minkowski called him a lazy dog.
I'm not disrespecting your questions, but at the root of the matter, I know for sure that you agree with me because you expressed yourself
Exactly this way in one of the litigations a few months ago and on several other occasions. You argued there (roughly) that scientific breakthroughs come from those few who have it.
Avi:
He was an excellent student and his only problems were defined as discipline problems and stemmed from the fact that the teacher didn't like him sitting and grinning in class.
Regarding Einstein. This is not true, you are invited to the exhibition that is still on display at the Science Museum in Jerusalem. The score 6 was simply the highest score then - equivalent to 100 for us. From what I remember from Prof. Hanoch Gutfreund's explanation, he was not a bad student. Shimon Israeli's song The Theory of Relationships relies on this rumor, and hence it was already widespread in the sixties when the song was written.
Higgs:
This legend about Einstein is just an urban legend that has no legs.
You are welcome to answer my questions about the periods and cultures before you start talking about beliefs.
Roy
I think that both Einstein had negatives and that the teacher prophesied to sweep the streets or something like that.
If we take too seriously those teachers and instructors whose whole job was to suppress the desire to learn from them.
But also to sow the seed of rebellion of independent thinking in those who have this germ burning in their bones as second nature. Precisely the antithesis and independent thinking against the current and the accepted method leads to very great results sometimes cashed in the history of the development of science.
Michael
You really believe that scientific thinking developed as a result of the stimuli and push of education and popularization.
I don't believe it.
I believe that science and its development always depends on individuals who have unique breakthrough ideas. Precisely from those who try and insist on sometimes being forced to pee (forgive me) against the direction of the wind.
I don't believe there is a groundbreaking scientist in history who was a conformist.
There were scientists who pretended to be conformists like Gauss who did not want to upset the scientists of his generation with concepts that might shock them too much. Therefore he did not reveal a large part of his innovations.
By the way, Higgs:
Of course, the same question is more correct for "cultures" and not for "periods". This terminology mobilizes for the benefit of the argument also contemporary cultures that do not participate in scientific practice.
Higgs:
Please think about the question of how it is that scientists did not grow in times when scientific culture did not flourish.
It is clear that the reason for this is the lack of exposure to science and not some genetic factor that took over society during these periods.
Hence the internal drive is not enough and exposure has a role "decisive is not a word!"
higgs,
I don't know who I represent today, but when I was in school, my certificate that was full of negatives predicted a future for me as a street cleaner (which is not such a bad job). The popular science books pushed me into the field of science and largely shaped my world view. For this reason, I believe that popular science is meant for everyone - it just needs to be presented correctly.
Michael and Roy.
Relax, I also really like to read such books. But you have to agree, we do not represent the "public".
You are only part of the small group of people who are interested in these things.
When a person loves and enjoys something, he will find his way to develop in the subject if it interests him enough.
higgs,
If it weren't for the popular science written by Carl Sagan, Asimov and others, I probably wouldn't have come to study science. I know others have been affected by similar letters. The conclusion from this is that popular science helps increase the number of people who join the scientific community every year.
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Higgs:
I think that the vast majority of scientists came to the scientific profession as a result of popular exposure to science.
There is no doubt that research budgets are influenced by the popularity of science.
Therefore the war is not completely Don Quixote.
Michael Rothschild:
On a joking and yet serious note, I don't expect the public to understand anything above a survival show in the Philippines or other reality shows. The rating of science programs compared to the above is completely minimal.
The public is simply not interested. The rating of religious programs or those related to religion and mysticism has always been more than science and there is no reason for this to change.
Therefore, in my opinion, popularization of science is just another mysticism program for the average public.
Furthermore, the popularization of science is usually used as a tool by the pans to compare science and religion.
and point out how science actually originates from religion. Any attempt to reverse the creation would be considered Don Quixoteism in my opinion.
Higgs:
Although you did not answer my questions and did not explain how you are supposed to expect the public to understand the value of science without explanation when even with explanations it has difficulty understanding (and the "hypothetical" situation I described regarding the day-to-day use of the products of science is the reality that the science-obsessed public encounters every day).
Since all the reasons that can be said have already been said, I assume that we will not be able to convince you and all that can be done in this case is to base ourselves on the freedom that democracy gives to each of us to act according to our understanding.
Roy Tsezana: B.Z:
Education is a science in itself. But there is no direct connection between the things.
Governments and philanthropic bodies are supposed to invest in education. This is a long-term investment.
But the source of funds for investment in education can come from the results of science only if they are real in terms of economic output.
Popular science belongs to the educational field and is therefore without a real scale for achievements and results.
Higgs, any field that wants to survive needs to cultivate not only the current generation and the short-term economic results but also the future generation and long-term planning. And this is exactly the point that the article tries to convey when popular science that speaks the language of the general public and 12-year-old children is one of the tools to achieve this result.
In order to investigate the truth and bring results, resources and personnel are needed. In today's public atmosphere, where the foundation of science is decreasing day by day, a situation can arise (or rather it has already arisen) in which the future generations of scientists will decrease in number, while those who nevertheless choose the "profession" of science will lack the resources required for their activity - activity that goes beyond applied science also includes The theoretical science that economists do not always know "how to eat" and without sufficient public-government support will be reduced or completely die out.
higgs,
Scientific results depend on the scientific community. The scientific community depends on two things: people and funding. People depend on science education, and science education comes from making science accessible to the general public. Funding comes from governments and private donors, and both depend on people. And people depend on…
It follows that the role of popular science is to make science accessible to the general public, thereby providing real science with people and funding.
------
my new blog - Another science
Michael and Roy
I don't understand what popular science is.
Isn't the only purpose of science to bring results.
And the only meaning of the word "results"
There must be economic output in a certain time frame preferably shorter than the "results".
I admit that sometimes the time span of an economic result from a scientific result is long or difficult to measure.
This is usually the bet of the investors in the scientific result who wish to make a financial profit.
Roy:
I would phrase the question differently because Higgs says that in his opinion there is no need for people in popular science.
For him, there are scientists who do not talk to the public and wait until Bush for their actions to speak, and there is a supernatural public that somehow manages to understand the "talk" of scientific achievements on its own.
Higgs does not care about the livelihood of the people of popular science and what he tells them to do is this - decide: either you are scientists (in which case you must silence yourself) or you are not scientists.
As I said, he is wrong, in my opinion, but according to his world of terms you should have asked what he wants the scientists (omitting the word "popular") to do in view of the fact that they **yes** achieve many achievements (contrary to his claim) and the public still does not understand the The "talk" of their actions.
higgs,
I still don't understand your mind. Can you demonstrate exactly what you want the popular scientists to do?
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
Higgs:
You can demonstrate evolution until it's green and there will still be people who will fight it fiercely.
Since these people really do nothing, they will also succeed in passing laws that prohibit the teaching of evolution.
You can prove until you are green that vaccinating children is the right thing to do and there will still be people who will fight it and if you don't fight back they will also succeed in screwing up the whole thing (at the moment they are still in an amount that does not disrupt the state of the population but if their number exceeds a certain threshold - an epidemic will break out. This will be A quantitative difference that has become a qualitative one, but there will still be those who claim that it is only a quantitative difference.
You can, until you are green, create a world in which every person - at every moment - uses approximately ten results of science that are completely incomprehensible to him (and who owes his life - with increasing probability with age - to the achievements of science) and where there will still be someone who will claim that science has not proven the himself and that this is due to the fact that the scientists talk too much and do too little (and will try to draw all kinds of conclusions from this, such as the need to eliminate budgets for the academy).
What was said here about science fiction is very true.
Really science fiction movies, books, games, etc. are really an excellent way to win people's hearts and get them excited about everything related to science.
I am far from being a scientist, but I can testify for myself that all my interest in the subject started from movies like "Cube" "Blip" "Pie" and so on.
Roy Cezana
It's a job like any other job, textile carpentry or paper industry.
So why not do the same for carpentry.
Bottom line, you can talk popular until you're green or blue and it won't get you results.
Science, like any other work, is measured by actual results, not talks or articles.
Although when there are no results then all that remains is to chatter.
I support every word, but it is not difficult when it comes to Eilat.
I also agree with Ran - the conference should be repeated at the first opportunity, and expanded to more in-depth workshops that will allow scientists to be exposed to the art of scientific communication.
And last but not least, Higgs - so far at least four people who both talk and do popular science have commented here. You are invited to join the circle of action.
Best regards,
Roy.
------
my new blog - Another science
The key word in this whole wonderful article is "mediation". It is true that the public of science seekers and scientists is tasked with coming towards the media and not the other way around. And it could be a smart idea to create a department of "science writers" within the university and allocate the necessary resources to it in order to be the cause The bridge between the "Ivory Tower" of the Communication Academy. It is impossible to expect the lone scientist to be a communication wizard and to be able to summarize an entire topic in the 5 minutes allotted to him in London with Krishanbaum. But a large system can be expected to take on this role.
And regarding the target audience? Quite a few scientists say that their interest in science did not start with an academic article or a love for an equation at first sight, but with popular ones such as Zoll Warren and Star Trek. Were it not for the same investment in the popular media, the same scientists might be working as brokers on Wall Street today.
It is necessary to expand the involvement of the public in the MDB... a wonderful way to expand thought.
The media giants have an interest in a stupid and shallow public
Higgs:
It's just not true.
There are those who both talk and do.
These are exactly the people who understood and internalized the lesson of Yotam's parable.
True and important, the point is that the culture of consumption and ratings, in which the media unfortunately plays a large role, anesthetizes and drugs the masses, hence this is not only a right, it is a moral duty for those who think there is another way to say it and influence, science and art must fight for their places in the hearts of the people.
Michael, are you claiming that the mere existence of one or another New Age theory to explain phenomena or things in the world is an insult to science?
If so, you yourself express disdain for any non-scientific belief or concept, in my view, disdain for a certain opinion has never caused someone to change it, the opposite only to hold on to it more fanatically
I completely agree with Ayelet. Science is completely dependent on public support to gain budgetary priority, and for that the fascinating ideas of science need to be made more accessible. Charismatic scientists like Richard Feynman and Stephen Hawking have contributed to raising the profile of science in the eyes of the public as much as they have contributed to science itself.
The conference in March was excellent, and should become a regular annual event.
Ran
As in many other subjects, the well-known rule always holds...
Those who do do not talk!
Those who talk do not do!
The things are very true and in my opinion should have been addressed not only to scientists but to every citizen seeking science.
We all have the duty to stop the deterioration.
I have already written a comment about this here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/ben-sasson-worn-on-strike-0207092/#comment-232274
Unfortunately, many scientists avoid even commenting on this site, and in doing so they help cut off the industry they are sitting on at the hands of all those (also on this site) who choose to belittle them at every opportunity - whether by presenting New Age or religious theories as a substitute for science in general, or by presenting theories Pseudo-scientific theories based on ignorance while showing boundless disdain for the achievements of the real scientists.
There are even scientists who will not respond here even to their own misquotation.
I've already had the opportunity to talk to several of them after someone quoted them to support false claims and even though they told me and even wrote to me in an email that they never said what was attributed to them and that their opinion is completely different, they preferred not to get involved in the debate here.
Although in light of the tendency of some people here to turn the discussions into a personal attack, the response here may be frustrating, but avoiding a response is like burying your head in the sand.
There are no boring subjects, there are people who don't know how to present them in an interesting way.
In my opinion, it is very true that publicity determines a lot, but we cannot ignore the fact that it also depends to a large extent on the target audience to whom the material is presented.
It is a fact that there are science channels such as National Geographic, the History Channel, Channel 8, etc. that know how to present the product in a fascinating way, but still the majority of the public - how to say - prefers the "Race to a Million"...
Right. Eilat Baram Tzabri is amazing and inspiring.
There is no Baram Sabri on Eilat. A larger-than-life researcher and enterprising woman and the Technion should see itself in Ramzel for having her as one of its ranks. Continue your blessed work Eilat.