Influence of Mass Media Science - Essay Example

Nowadays the influence of mass media science, particularly television, becomes extremely huge, though very often media science proclaims ideas that are very far from "traditional" science. Notwithstanding, media science appears to be the only widespread source for advancing of the knowledge around the world. The pseudo science and plain lack of common sense that can be seen on television, found in printed media, heard on the radio, or surfed on the Internet, confuse general public about science, how science is done, what are the main functions of science, who runs scientific progress. Mass media, especially television, printed media and the Internet benefits from the misunderstanding, superstitions and fears of general public who live in the world that is completely dependent on science and on scientific achievements. Television, as the most influential and powerful part of mass media, uses initial desire of a person to get information about surrounding world. As Carl Sagan , the famous astronomer and advocate of popular science, once mentioned: "children are natural-born scientists, inherently curious about the world around them and the way things work". It is the way we often encountered science in the classroom that seemed to turn many people off to science, he contended. (Sharon Dunwoody, Sharon M. Friedman, Carol L. Rogers, 180) Media started to involve general public in its nets long ago. In 1686, in a French speaking Entretiens sur la pluralit des mondes, there were recognized the need to satisfy both 'la gens du monde' and 'les savants'. Only in the next fifty years, this specification of public tended to develop more and more into two different orders of discourse: one for the scientists, the other one for the educated public. By the end of the following century, this second language had already focused on specific and paradigmatic audiences: women (as 'symbols of ignorance, goodwill, curiosity') for instance, through periodicals like The Ladies' Diary and books like Il Newtonianesimo per le dame by Francesco Algarotti (1752) or L'Astronomie des dames by Joseph Jrome Lefranois de Lalande (1785) (A. R. Hall, 339). It is only since the second half of the nineteenth century, however that one can really talk of 'large scale' communication of science explicitly addressed by its authors not just to specific audiences but also to the general public ('grand public'). Nowadays there are a lot of television programs and channels in that or this way linked with science. National Geographic, Nova, Discovery and TV communication tools are good examples. The another example are the Jacques Cousteau's discoveries, they were devoted exactly to the problem of doing science, and the programs were done in an interesting manner, attracting spectators. The usual composition of a Jacques Cousteau's program was: identification of problem, a hypothesis for the problem solution, and then action, live solution of the problem. There are also other programs, broadcast on educational channels, their distinguishing feature is that they represent science fairly, but at the same time they have very limited audience comparing to above-mentioned channels and programs. There are some peculiarities of science on TV; they are mentioned in the book of Jane Gregory and Steve Miler. The argument of the authors is that television moving away from traditional scientific exposition and using popular culture one. All scientific stories on television have heroes and sometimes villains, plots, denouements, beginnings, middles, and ends, these all means that scientific stories transforms to dramatic. Jane Gregory and Steve Miler turn to media studies of professor Roger Silverstone, who determines a tension between the storytelling aspect of television science and the need for a realistic representation of the scientific processes at work. Jane Gregory and Steve Miler descried a typical TV scientific program like one that start with a problem, set out mimetically in terms of "what were, and what killed, the dinosaurs" and then a hero will step into the frame and start thinking about how the problem might be solved. Usually topics for such programs are not problematic for current, as with example with dinosaurs, very rare indeed are programs about, for example, why it is so difficult to develop a vaccine for HIV or why scientists still do not know what dark matter is--as rare, perhaps, as police dramas in which the bank robber evades capture and lives a life of luxury in the sun. (Jane Gregory and Steve Miler, 123-127). If the overall social message of police dramas is that crime does not pay, the overriding social message of science on television is that scientists always solve the problem, even though how they do so must remain invisible to the public. In fact, television can be especially important sources of information for unobtrusive issues, those things we do not typically encounter in our everyday lives ( Zucker, 1978). Many science issues certainly fall in that category. For example, most of us are not likely to have much direct experience with such things as cloning, global warming, or endangered species. Even with an issue as seemingly ubiquitous as AIDS, more than 60% of Americans said they did not personally know anyone with AIDS, the HIV virus, or who had died from AIDS (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1996b). Although just over 25% of Americans learned about AIDS from family members, friends, or acquaintances and fewer than one in five learned about the disease from doctors or other healthcare workers, some two thirds of Americans said they had obtained AIDS information from television and more than one half recalled getting such information from newspapers (The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, 1996c). In the United Kingdom, television is regarded by many people as their main source of scientific information. In addition, 7 out of 10 people in Britain claim to be "very" or "fairly interested" in science and technology topics. Asked their views on the amount of coverage of science on television, 55% said the level was about right, with 26% saying there was too little coverage. Three percent wanted less science, whereas 16% had no opinion either way. In another, comparable study, IBA research found that the great majority of viewers felt they should be informed about science; 78% agreed that people should be informed about the things scientists are doing. (IBA research) In terms of program topic interest, the most popular science topics concern biological, medical, and health matters. There is a healthy interest also in geology, car technology, weather forecasting, and space exploration. Most respondents (78%) felt that a lot could be learned about these topics from such programs. A perplexing finding, however, cited by Gunter, is the unusual perception held by viewers of "science," and where it can be found in the schedules. Often they did not see it in explicitly scientific programs but did find it in programs where, on conventional definitions of science, none existed (e.g., a quiz show that featured general knowledge questions about science; drama series with science themes or portrayals of scientists) Television is very often responsible for spreading scare stories that stir up controversies, inhibit scientific research and opening markets for new products. Although, media researches prove that controversies play an important role in promoting a new technology for public. Media science carries very useful mission - it tells us not what to think, but what to think about. In a modern society such as British, this 'thinking about' is likely to have critical origin, and is more likely to happen with those prepared, socially or intellectually, to find and use knowledge. Television helps to cover this gap between the informed and the less well informed. Controversy pushes the stream of information and cuts this gap. So discussion has a very useful role: it expedites the flow of knowledge, and provides and supports the involvement of a simple society member in the issue. (Bauer, M. W. and Bonfadelli, ch. 5) Controversy can also increase the whole range of a problem: for example it might stimulate the clergy or the lawyers to present a view; and it can reveal traditional ideas, so that they can be adapted to new surroundings. So, television and other mass media are very important for such processes and play vital public role for the society. In conclusion we can say that there is no single, ideal way of presenting science. For some people the mediating role of a television host or reporter is essential; for others it is unacceptable. A clearly defined didactic situation where the knowledge differential between the viewer and the scientist or the TV host is underscored can be happily accepted by one category, but will be rejected by another. Behind these differing reactions to form we can see different relationships to the media, different expectations of science and even different ideas about what the popularization of science can mean: transmission of practical knowledge or the chance to meet a scientist. Anyway television is also the solution; it's an option for modern enlightenment. TV could offer interesting and educational products and readings that for promotion of science to the general public, so knowledge will increase rather than decrease in value for the people's daily lives. The necessity of discovery, intrigues and coverings operating in science, make excellent opportunity for new stories and new joint gains for both science and television. References Jane Gregory and Steve Miler , Science in public (2000) pp. 123-127 Sharon Dunwoody, Sharon M. Friedman, Carol L. Rogers, Communicating Uncertainty: Media Coverage of New and Controversial Science; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999, pp. 180 R. Hall, The Scientific Revolution, 1500-1800: The Formation of the Modern Scientific Attitude; Longmans, Green, 1954, pp. 339 Gunter B. "Come on down: A report on the popular appeal of TV quiz and game shows." Airwaves. Quarterly Journal of the IBA, 1986, p. 5 IBA, Public attitudes towards science on television (research report). London, 1996 The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. ( 1996c). The Kaiser Survey on Americans and AIDS: The role of the media. Menlo Park, CA: Author The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. ( 1996b). The Kaiser Survey on Americans and AIDS/HIV. Menlo Park, CA: Author Zucker H. G., "The variable nature of news media influence". In B. D. Ruben (Ed.), Communication yearbook, ( 1978), 2 (pp. 225-240). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Bauer, M. W. and Bonfadelli, H., 'Controversy, media coverage and public knowledge', in Bauer, M. W. and Gaskell, G., Eds, 'Biotechnology: the Making of a Global Controversy', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2002), Chapter 5 Bibliography Roger Silverstone, "Narrative strategies in television science". In: Impacts and Influences: Essays on Media Power in the Twentieth Century, edited by James Curran , Anthony Smith, and Pauline Wingate. London: Methuen, 1987; pp. 291-330 Fiona Chew, Sushma Palmer, and Soohong Kim, "Sources of information about health and nutrition: Can viewing one television programme make a difference" Public Understanding of Science 4 ( 1995), pp. 17-30. Johan Galtung and Mari Ruge, "Structuring and selecting news". In: The Manufacture of News: Deviance, Social Problems and the Mass Media, edited by Stanley Cohen and Jock Young. London: Constable, 1973; pp. 2-73 Christopher Dornan, "Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of science and the media". Critical Studies in Mass Communication 7 ( 1990), pp. 48-71 James E. Grunig, "Communication of scientific information to nonscientists". In: Progress in Communication Studies, Vol. II, edited by B. Dervin and M. J. Voight . Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex, 1980; p. 169 Sharon Dunwoody, "The challenge for scholars of popularized science: Explaining ourselves". Public Understanding of Science 1 ( 1992), pp. 11-14 Read More

 

Read More