tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post6892125032790248095..comments2024-03-11T13:47:03.621-05:00Comments on Physics and Physicists: Talking To The Media About Your ResearchZapperZhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-58144133298200740372008-09-12T08:15:00.000-05:002008-09-12T08:15:00.000-05:00I don't think my intention was to show my "distrus...I don't think my intention was to show my "distrust" on the media. It is more of the message or the content that is being passed to the public, and how the public perceived the message. A lot of things get lost in translation, and it IS a translation of scientific content into consumable content.<BR/><BR/>My issue isn't with the media (although I have PLENTY of issues with certain parts of the media). My issue is whether the public is AWARE that there are many layers and filters that the story has been put through to bring them that piece of information. I know many do, but I also know many who don't. They read science news and articles in newspaper and popular magazines the same way they read political news. Some even managed to fool themselves into thinking that what they read is complete and accurate, rather than realizing that this is only a glimpse of what actually is going on. Physics articles, to me, suffers the most from such watering down. While most people can relate to science articles about medicine or climate etc., physics stories about particle colliders, dark matter, black holes, etc. are steep in intricate mathematical formulation and description that most people cannot even begin to comprehend. Thus, what they have to go by are the words being used to describe them. "Dark Matter" and "Black holes" are the only thing they get, and they will read that within the context of what they had already understand, not within the physics context of how those words were used. I see that problem very often.<BR/><BR/>Zz.ZapperZhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15861398273820851809noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-34480619.post-50175834829088277022008-09-12T08:02:00.000-05:002008-09-12T08:02:00.000-05:00Although the general tone of the (interesting) art...Although the general tone of the (interesting) article you link to is somewhat cautious towards journalists, so that I wouldn't say that you have much misrepresented it in your quotations, nonetheless the last two paragraphs of the article take a rather different line, that is contrary to the pessimistic attitude to journalists that you present here (and which I <I>think</I> you generally take in blog posts on this subject):<BR/><BR/>-----------------------------<BR/><BR/>When interacting with journalists, "there are a lot of things that can go wrong, but in the end it seems to work," says Peters. In his survey, 57% of the researchers said they were generally pleased about their latest media appearances, and only 6% were dissatisfied. "On the whole, it's good for young scientists to get your name out there," Crockett says. There are some risks, but Crockett puts them in perspective. "I think other scientists who have been through the process understand that something gets lost in translation, and if some journalist somewhere misquotes me or represents my research inaccurately, they won't hold me responsible because they know how it works," she says. Do everything you can so the journalist gets it right, but accept that some of it is out of your hands, she adds.<BR/><BR/> "In general, ... the scientist should not regard the journalist as an enemy. Such a distrustful attitude drains a lot of the scientist's energy that would better be spent on a good interview. Working with the mass media should be seen as an opportunity and not a hazard," Scherzler says.<BR/>--------------------------------Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com