This conclusion is the result of nearly a decade of experience as a science journalist in TV, as an admittedly sceptical consumer of (international) science productions and as an observer of the first year of the ambitious initiative „Wissenschaft im Dialog“ - the German contribution to the improvement of Public Understanding of Science.

Why real science doesn’t sell on TV - here are some arguments:
• Scientist are bad communicators and most scientists see no need plus no incentive for communicating with the public.
• Most scientists are neither protagonist nor antagonist of a good story - they are just boring!
• Scientists lack sex-appeal and meet the public‘s expectations of the nerd-type.
• Scientific processes are slow and linear and don’t suit dramatic storytelling.
• Zero emotions: Molecules don’t cry and we don’t fall in love with accelerators!
• And if real science would sell private television would surely buy in (compare the boom of quiz shows on commerical TV)!

Nevertheless: Since most people get their news and knowledge from TV, there is a need for even more science&technology reporting. Maybe practioners have to change their strategy: Be creative+ innovative and compensate for the shortcomings of science and scientists by good storytelling and journalism.

My presentation will/can include several good and bad practise examples to support my thesis or be a dialogue with a theoretician who can present research refuting my experience-based arguments (especially with our most recent product „IQ - die Wissenschaftsshow“).





 

">
 [PCST]
PCST Network

Public Communication of Science and Technology

 

Why real science doesn’t sell on TV

Daniele Jörg  

This conclusion is the result of nearly a decade of experience as a science journalist in TV, as an admittedly sceptical consumer of (international) science productions and as an observer of the first year of the ambitious initiative „Wissenschaft im Dialog“ - the German contribution to the improvement of Public Understanding of Science.

Why real science doesn’t sell on TV - here are some arguments:
• Scientist are bad communicators and most scientists see no need plus no incentive for communicating with the public.
• Most scientists are neither protagonist nor antagonist of a good story - they are just boring!
• Scientists lack sex-appeal and meet the public‘s expectations of the nerd-type.
• Scientific processes are slow and linear and don’t suit dramatic storytelling.
• Zero emotions: Molecules don’t cry and we don’t fall in love with accelerators!
• And if real science would sell private television would surely buy in (compare the boom of quiz shows on commerical TV)!

Nevertheless: Since most people get their news and knowledge from TV, there is a need for even more science&technology reporting. Maybe practioners have to change their strategy: Be creative+ innovative and compensate for the shortcomings of science and scientists by good storytelling and journalism.

My presentation will/can include several good and bad practise examples to support my thesis or be a dialogue with a theoretician who can present research refuting my experience-based arguments (especially with our most recent product „IQ - die Wissenschaftsshow“).





 

A copy of the full paper has not yet been submitted.

BACK TO TOP