From: hall@vice.ICO.TEK.COM (Hal Lillywhite)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Sciencists/politics (was Hawking speaks out ...)
Date: 9 Apr 92 20:33:20 GMT
Distribution: world,local
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.


In article <9APR199208353753@sscvx1.ssc.gov> sawyer@sscvx1.ssc.gov (Lee Sawyer) writes:

>  But I agree 100 % that "celebraties" are given widely inflated credence
> on issues that cannot possibly be in their area of expertise. So what do we
> do ? I am all in favor of forming an ACTIVE information service (say,
> within APS) that would force the issue. Have a group of scientists hold
> press conferences, do the things that media seem to feel are important,
> and try to better inform the public. There could be handful of full-time
> folks, who pick particular experts to speak on particular subjects.
> How does this sit with the Net ?

Sounds like a good idea if we can make it work, that is if we can
get the media to pay attention to someone who's only qualification 
is that he actually knows what he is talking about.  In fact, why 
stop with the APS?  Other sciences besides physics could also 
contribute.

To get such an idea to fly I think there are a few requirements we
would have to adhere to:

1.  Statements from this group should be strictly factual.  If the
facts of the issue are not clear that is exactly what we should tell
the media, perhaps with something like a probability estimate.  In
fact I think it would do society a lot of good to recognize that not
everything is perfectly known.

2.  Whoever is involved in this has to recognize the reality of the
deadline.  Scientists are used to taking months or even years to
publish their results.  This is not acceptable to the media - they
need something for the 11 PM news or the morning paper.  To them
tomorrow is a long time away.  We might be able to work a middle
ground with something quick for today with a more complete follow-on
tomorrow, but we will have to have material ready while public
interest is still high.

3.  We will probably have to accommodate the media appetite for
glitz.  In general I think hand drawn figures on a blackboard just
won't cut it.  We might get away with rough drawings for a first
shot but if we hope to get enough follow-on coverage to really
educate the public I think we will need pretty pictures, color,
animation, etc.  It probably wouldn't hurt to have a few cute
cartoon characters help explain things.  In my opinion TV news (and
to a lesser extent print news) is in the entertainment business more
than the information business.  We have to work with that.

4.  Print media offerings can appeal to specific types of readers
(as long as there are enough of that type of reader to buy the
advertized products).  However anything we expect to get on TV
better appeal to nearly everybody.  The TV viewer can't just skip to
the next article so he changes channels - then doesn't change back
unless something on the other channel causes him to change again.  
Remember, ratings are "where it's at" for anybody in the TV industry.  
They absolutely will *not* broadcast anything that will cost them 
viewers.

I think this is a start.  I hope others will add their comments.
Maybe the net could actually do something useful here.  I would like
to see us hash out a reasonable proposal to present to the
scientific societies.  Within the APS I suspect POPA (Panel on
Public Affairs) is the appropriate forum to deal with such a
proposal.  Of course we would have to contact appropriate groups in
other disciplines and get their cooperation.
Newsgroups: sci.physics