Hi Bob,
I was going to write and say how wrong I think you are about arts vs science press coverage; I quickly noted your comments on Friday - the day the Guardian did a piece on the Shakespeare - followed closely on Saturday with coverage of your (Hooke) story in as much detail in pretty much the same spot in the newspaper. Anyway, I see now that you let the Guardian off the hook (without an e).
The newspapers I read seem to be jam-packed with science so I'd be surprised if there's an overall bias towards arts/humanities? But maybe there's a conflict when it comes to "science & culture" (incl. History of Science) - I've curated a few science-art exhibitions and found it can be very difficult persuading science and/or arts editors to cover these projects because both groups feel that it falls outside their remit i.e. science journalists have been very supportive of the work but feel a pressure (from above?) to stick to what's expected of them (hard natural science)...and there's so much of that to report that they have trouble considering interdisciplinary work.
The Royal Soc shouldn't take it personally - espec in relation to Hooke - isn't he the guy we don't even have a portrait of? Don't suppose that helps his public image - maybe if someone had found a dusty old portrait in the same place his folio turned up he would have had more press (espec if he was good-looking!).
I suspect if it had been Shakespeare vs Darwin, Darwin would have fared much better?
As to whether Shakespeare contributed as much to humankind as Hooke - aren't they probably as important as each other? Didn't people like Shakespeare contribute to an intellectual climate in which great minds became capable of doing great things? Maybe the 250 or so words Shakespeare introduced into the English language made it easier for Hooke to describe what he saw down his microscope?
These arguments are probably endless and circular so I'll sign off now...
....look forward to seeing the Hooke stuff on show.
Wynn
________________________________
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science on behalf of Ward, Bob
Sent: Fri 31/03/2006 09:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge
I know that there hasn't been any quantitative analysis of whether there is a bias towards the arts and humanities in the UK media, but I have to say that the extensive coverage devoted today to the forthcoming auction of the Shakespeare first edition (of which there are about 250 in the world) which already vastly exceeds the coverage of the auction of the Hooke folio (of which there is just one), looks like pretty solid evidence.
No doubt there will be further yards of coverage and hours of airtime devoted to it if it is saved for the nation just minutes before it is due to go under the hammer, in stark contrast to the way that the UK media completely ignored (with the honourable exception of the Guardian) the deal that the Royal Society struck on Tuesday afternoon to save the Hooke folio for the nation.
I know the documents aren't directly comparable, and that there might be much debate about who made the more important contribution to humankind, but it does seem to me that the contrast in the coverage of Shakespeare and Hooke this week shows that the UK media is much less interested in Britain's scientific heritage than it its history in the arts and humanities. Is it because news editors know and care less about our scientific heritage? Or is it that our science journalists don't care?
In a few weeks time, the Hooke folio will be arriving back at the Royal Society for the first time in about 300 years. I hope that the UK media will want to cover that. Or should I be contacting arts correspondents instead?
Bob Ward
Senior Manager
Policy Communication
Royal Society
6-9 Carlton House Terrace
London
SW1Y 5AG
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7451 2516
Fax: +44 (0) 20 7451 2615
Mobile: +44 (0) 7811 320346
******************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may also be subject to legal privilege. It is intended only for the recipient(s) named above. If you are not named above as a recipient, you must not read, copy, disclose, forward or otherwise use the information contained in this e-mail.
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive, can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk **********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|