Points I prepared for an interview in the disclosure program, 15/12/04 at 20:30 edited and presented by Hanan Azran on the first channel. The interview was not broadcast in the end
1. Science has always been a stepchild in the press, but since that unfortunate statement by Alex Giladi about "Masaud Mishderot" that the TV broadcasters are targeting, especially on Channel 2, all major media outlets including the newspapers, TV stations and radio stations are targeting that Masaud. The others are content with substitutes in the form of monthly magazines (Galileo, Popular Science, Scientific American), independent initiatives on the Internet and a weekly ghetto in Maariv. The country corrects the picture a little.
2. Science does not have a lobby because because of the media's contemptuous attitude towards science, the scientists themselves despise the media and therefore prefer not to deal with it. Even when I come for the first time to interview scientists, they show suspicion. Also the nature of scientific work is that the language should be careful and using understatement and this conflicts with the media's desire for a strong title even if it is at the expense of accuracy.
3. There is an untested claim, as if science is something difficult to explain. There may not be enough people who know how to make it picturesque but it is not an impossible task. In the end, scientific developments affect our lives, even if the owner of the 4x4 does not know exactly how the GPS-based navigation system works. There are not many scientists who know how to combine popular writing talent with accurate scientific knowledge. And if there are any - they all write in part B in the country (Marit Selvin, Uriel Brizon)...
4. The press editors are afraid of science - most of them came from humanistic academic settings. There are also people, including newspaper editors, who are simply afraid of science - mainly because of the mad scientist myth presented in movies and children's shows they saw in their youth. For this reason, they often publish all kinds of threats against scientific projects that, in their gut, are seen as threatening, such as cloning or genetic engineering of plants intended for food. Not that science is immune to criticism, but at least it should be reasoned and objective criticism and not rely on gut feelings.
5. The result of all these processes that have been going on for years is simply ignoring the existence of science in the media in a country that is one of the few that launches satellites on its own, is world-class advanced in stem cell research and whose scientists win the Nobel Prize, when every female star receives endless pages and airtime.
6. The financial expenditure may also be a consideration, but when it comes to an event of national magnitude, it is the media's duty to address it, the use of the Technion spokesperson is possible but indicates lack of seriousness. After all, no one will rely on the spokesperson of Maccabi Tel Aviv to know what happened in the Euroleague game.
7. There is no escaping comparing the event with the winning of the Israeli surfer Gal Friedman a gold medal in the marginal sport at the Olympics. God forbid, I do not belittle this win, but no newspaper editor or broadcast station thought of giving up sending a messenger to the medal distribution ceremony, and no one calculated the costs. For some reason when it comes to Nobel they all disappear. Lucky that YNET readers at least won from the homeless.
8. Even the critics of the media are not interested in the coverage of the field of science.
