Scientific American

[Palimino]

A revolution in the critical feedback of scientific journalism, is looming. Conventional media assume a passive receiver with no power to question the wisdom received from radio, TV, magazines, etc. Now with the interactive dimension of the Internet, this is changing. A good example is the following.

Check-out http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/ for an example of questioning received wisdom (Scientific American in this case). During 1996 a debate about nanotechnology was conducted between the Foresight Institute and Scientific American magazine. IMO Scientific American got their butt comprehensively kicked. This is not gloating. I grew-up reading the Scientific American magazine and it is among the most enlightened in terms of being honest and providing feedback (as opposed to the poncy pretensions of many other magazines). They seem to have admitted their mistake (unusual for magazines) and the debate mainly revolved around deflating the egos, pomposity and pretensions of dinosaur academics.

The debate was noteworthy for how the World Wide Web made possible a detailed response to a published article. It illustrates the new debating paradigm and the power of interactivity.

 

[plazma]

"Conventional media assume a passive receiver with no power to question the wisdom received from radio, TV, magazines, etc."

I strongly disagree. People have minds of their own, you know. They can think, and they can disagree with what they hear and see. (Just like what is happening here right now.)

And I don't know about the rest of you, but I have never seen a radio or a tv set that can make assumptions, as is claimed above. Is someone making sentient radios or what?

 

[Palimino]

"Conventional media assume a passive receiver with no power to question the wisdom received from radio, TV, magazines, etc."

I strongly disagree. People have minds of their own, you know. They can think, and they can disagree with what they hear and see. (Just like what is happening here right now.)

And I don't know about the rest of you, but I have never seen a radio or a tv set that can make assumptions, as is claimed above. Is someone making sentient radios or what?

You misunderstand. I shall expand. No-one is making sentient radios, it’s the journalism in the programs propagated by the radio that is at issue (are you deliberately being obtuse?). Conventional media uses a ‘top down’ model (from the few to the many – incidentally, this is how propaganda works). So, even if people ‘have minds of their own’ they are isolated individuals. There are many gullible recipients who do not have the benefit of your critical thinking. **The few have control**, so even if irate, critical responses are received, they can bin them. If they have a coherent response they can ‘kindly’ respond (see how ‘objective’ we are).

The Foresight Institute in the Sci-Am debate uses a ‘bottom up’ model (from the many to the few) and uses the Internet (read by many people) to crit. the Sci-Am article. Incidentally, the Foresight Institute are the heavy hitters where nanotechnology is concerned. Sci-Am are dilettantes’. The Scientific American magazine can’t wiggle away from criticism. They do not ‘have control’. Viva Internet!

 

[plazma]

Dude, have you heard of someone called Noam Chomsky?
See if you can get hold of one of his books. Just Google it.

In particular, find Chomsky's book "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media" (1988) explores this topic in depth, presenting their "propaganda model" of the news media with numerous detailed case studies demonstrating it. According to this propaganda model, more democratic societies like the U.S. use subtle, non-violent means of control, unlike totalitarian systems, where physical force can readily be used to coerce the general population. In an often-quoted remark, Chomsky states that "propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state." (Media Control)

Read them, and then come back and discuss your pointless point again.

 

[pos(t)er]

Plazma,you're missing the point. I don't think Palimino is saying people are stupid. In fact, what his article suggests is that people who do think for themselves might be able to give their feedbackt to the media.

 

[plazma]

"Plazma,you're missing the point. I don't think Palimino is saying people are stupid. In fact, what his article suggests is that people who do think for themselves might be able to give their feedbackt to the media."

I am not missing the point.

The internet and SMS technology have been around for a long time, and are used extensively by governments and corporations, precisely because it is two-way communication. These technologies are not exactly new.
And intelligent, informed people will always form their own opinions, regardless of whatever propaganda is being pushed at them by governments, corporations, religions etc. etc.

What kind of doofus point is being made here, anyway?? And what do you mean, "might be able to"??? Of bloody course they can give their own feedback. Just read the comments section of any news article on a newspaper website, man.

 

[Palimino]

Dude, have you heard of someone called Noam Chomsky?...

Read them, and then come back and discuss your pointless point again.

Cut to the chase. Read the site http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/ instead of stuffing around with intellectual pretensions.

 

[Palimino]

Of course you are missing the point (even if you were bludgeoned with it you would still miss it). Read the site http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/ (and my post) for information on ‘the point’.

 

[cerebus]

The point isn't about the inability of the public to make an informed conclusion, it's about new forms of communication being able to force debate where big media has stifled it by their hegemony and control of the channels of dissemination.

 

[Palimino]

Pos(t)er

Plazma,you're missing the point. I don't think Palimino is saying people are stupid. In fact, what his article suggests is that people who do think for themselves might be able to give their feedbackt to the media.

cerebus

The point isn't about the inability of the public to make an informed conclusion, it's about new forms of communication being able to force debate where big media has stifled it by their hegemony and control of the channels of dissemination.

Well put! A sentence or two sums-up my point. This is the thrust of my argument. Different modes of reception don’t come into it.

 

[PeterCH]

The problem with thinking that there can be any meaningful debate on any scientific topics is that one assumes that people are experts in those fields. That is impossible, no-one can be an expert in everything, and so as a lay person you can read a site like sciencedaily but you're in no way an expert fit enough to contradict or question researchers involved in the given field. The debate becomes meaningless.

Secondly most research is closed source. Wanna read a scientific journal - you gotta pay a subscription, most of the time. Subs start at $25 per article - not that cheap now, eh?

The diluted, populist tripe you find on sciencedaily is just an extension of mass media sensationalism - countless studies get reported on, countless discoveries but hardly ever does a real expert put them in perspective - a publication like sciencedaily does not have the money to hire such an expert for one, secondly such an expert would have to be working in the given field, and those people don't have time to write columns for lay people. Few articles report the importance of a study in meaningful terms - because either that is not clear at the moment or people who can credibly report on that don't have the time or may comment on the research. Conclusions of research are never entirely conclusive to boot too, and one needs meta-analises and personal expert knowledge to apply conclusions of research. This is way over the heads of most people. Heck even understanding the problem is way over the head of anyone who doesn't work in any research related field.

It's the same story as with real journalism, user generated content will NEVER replace traditional professional paid journalists with government contacts and passes/protection to be in war zones. Twitter, blogger, Youtube, Facebook, etc are just opium for the masses.

 

[Phronesis]

The problem with thinking that there can be any meaningful debate on any scientific topics is that one assumes that people are experts in those fields. That is impossible, no-one can be an expert in everything, and so as a lay person you can read a site like sciencedaily but you're in no way an expert fit enough to contradict or question researchers involved in the given field. The debate becomes meaningless.

Secondly most research is closed source. Wanna read a scientific journal - you gotta pay a subscription, most of the time. Subs start at $25 per article - not that cheap now, eh?

The diluted, populist tripe you find on sciencedaily is just an extension of mass media sensationalism - countless studies get reported on, countless discoveries but hardly ever does a real expert put them in perspective - a publication like sciencedaily does not have the money to hire such an expert for one, secondly such an expert would have to be working in the given field, and those people don't have time to write columns for lay people. Few articles report the importance of a study in meaningful terms - because either that is not clear at the moment or people who can credibly report on that don't have the time or may comment on the research. Conclusions of research are never entirely conclusive to boot too, and one needs meta-analises and personal expert knowledge to apply conclusions of research. This is way over the heads of most people. Heck even understanding the problem is way over the head of anyone who doesn't work in any research related field.

It's the same story as with real journalism, user generated content will NEVER replace traditional professional paid journalists with government contacts and passes/protection to be in war zones. Twitter, blogger, Youtube, Facebook, etc are just opium for the masses.

True, scienedaily is just there to highlight interesting findings. It is up to those who are really interested in the findings to actually go and dig up the original articles published in peer-reviewed articles. Sometimes they are referenced in sciencedaily-type articles, sometimes not.

 

[Palimino]

It's the same story as with real journalism, user generated content will NEVER replace traditional professional paid journalists with government contacts and passes/protection to be in war zones. Twitter, blogger, Youtube, Facebook, etc are just opium for the masses.

Wrongo! You are obviously an agent for the status quo and pooh-pooh citizen journalism (who’s to say the ‘user’ is not the world expert?). Sci-Am is a laymen’s magazine. They know a bit about a wide spectrum of disciplines and inform their readers of issues in science in an accessible way (no mean feat). They do this very well. Their problem was being glib about a subject which the Foresight Institute is the world expert in. They do not pretend to know about the other areas Sci-Am addresses. But Sci-Am did [pretend to know] and trespassed on their turf with a dismissive article. They took exception and handed Sci-Am their head. Sci-Am couldn’t bury their mistake because exception was taken in the full public glare of the Internet.