Alert? Me? I'll sue.
As to the age thing, yup. I admit to owning a "bus pass". Well trains
actually, better bargain.
The tragedy is that the collective memory is riddled with Alzheimer's.
(There, doesn't that prove how politically incorrect an old lag can be?)
Wheels keep getting reinvented. Mistakes repeated.
When was the last time that one of these bright young things read the
"Bodmer report". 20 years on and still laden with interesting insights.
I have just been reading a long academic paper on the public understanding
of engineering. All of it could have been written a quarter of a century
ago. And yet sweet bugger all has happened on that front in the meantime.
I guess the bottom line is that the past 20 years have been field days for
those wanting to write thesis about PEST, while those of us hoping to
achieve something can only cry into our beer.
A lot has happened, but boy has it been piecemeal and uncoordinated. PEST
outside the media looks healthy. And yet the press coverage of science is
still rubbish.
____________________________________________________________________
Michael Kenward OBE / Science Writer & Editorial Consultant
Grange Cottage / Editor-at-large, Science|Business
Staplefield / Tel/Fax: +44 (0)1444 401064
West Sussex / [log in to unmask]
RH17 6EL / http://www.michael.kenward.dial.pipex.com/
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Brian Gamble
Sent: 02 May 2006 21:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge
What a wise old sage you are Michael1 Thouble is that the psi-comers are
getting younger making us feel older!
Good to know you are still alert.
----- Original Message -----
From: "mgfv43" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2006 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge
> Catching up on old messages - I find it tedious ploughing through all
> those
> wonderful job ads and invitations to events - this one caught my eye.
>
> As the nutcase who first dreamed up the BA's Media Fellowships scheme, and
> who screwed sponsorship out of various folks, I endorse Nigel Eady's
> general
> view, but past experience, and talking to some of the people who have
> hosted
> the fellows, I am not sure that the "without exception" is quite true.
> There
> is always one wiseass who turns up for a placement knowing all of the
> answers before asking the questions.
>
> I'd water down "without exception".
>
> Unfortunately, scientists who leave their placements with the views he
> quoted are also disappointingly misguided. Then again, I find most science
> reporting in the newspapers to be tediously lazy, perhaps even lazily
> tedious, these days.
>
> As to the arts/science thing, ho hum.
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> Michael Kenward / Phone/Fax: +44 (0)1444 400568
> /
> Science Writer & Stuff / Genetically modified words for sale
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nigel Eady
> Sent: 04 April 2006 14:25
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge
>
> -----------Is it because news editors know and care less about our
> scientific heritage? Or is it that our science journalists don't
> care?-----------
>
>
> Have to say I think it's neither of these things as Chris Stokes said.
>
> When, each year, the BA gives a small number of full-time research
> scientists the chance to become science journalists for 3-8 weeks, many
> of them start the placement somewhat sceptical of the integrity and
> knowledge of science journalists. Saying for example,
>
> "Like many academics, despite my best intentions and training,
> several previous forays into the media had been less than successful:
> misquotes and missed opportunities felt like the norm, not the
> exception."
>
> However, I think I can say that, without exception, the scientists come
> out of the Media Fellowships scheme http://www.the-ba.net/mediafellows
> (2006 applications close on 18 April) with quite a different view. For
> example,
>
> "The science journalists I met have an incredible breadth of
> knowledge and a talent at communicating interesting, accurate stories.
> There's no underlying conspiracy to find 'shock' stories, or portray
> science in a negative way."
> "I admired their tireless interest in the science they covered and
> their genuine commitment to getting the story right."
> "The science item will compete for space with the earthquakes,
> politics and scandal that make up the everyday news."
> "One of the most essential things about writing a piece for public
> consumption is the all-important opening line, or hook. If the news
> editor does not think this gripping or leading enough, the piece is
> unlikely to be printed, however newsworthy the subject."
>
> I think the last couple of quotes answer the questions Bob posed.
>
> Nigel
>
>
> Nigel Eady
> Science in Society Assistant
> The BA
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: psci-com: on public engagement with science
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Abbott, Wynn
> Sent: 03 April 2006 00:10
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [PSCI-COM] A bit of a whinge
>
> 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
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> 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
**********************************************************************
**********************************************************************
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
**********************************************************************
|
