This discussion is extremely interesting and timely. I am not sure of the statistics but it is widely held that the public receives much of its information (news, science, medicine, etc.) via the media, namely TV. Thus it becomes incumbent upon it to provide accurate information. I am certain that a significant number of us have observed occasions, on TV, where that criterion was not met. Even bona fide scientists can become 'distorted' - examples would be Dr. Oz and a plethora of other media physicians, 'Dr's and ‘Prof’s X, Y, Z narrating cosmology shows, the list goes on. Yet I am thankful for each and every one of those exaggerations, because the next day I can take it to the forum of my students – a teaching point has risen, a discussion of the science ensues, the final lesson being ‘not all that is on TV, or print, and most notably, on the internet, should be taken at face value.’ Yes it is sad that hyperbole appears to have become an integral part of the material that media feeds the public. The direst of outcomes of the range of outcomes predicted by models make the news, prognostications of traumatic, fatalistic ends appear to receive the greatest ‘press’, yet the variables that the models incorporate are rarely discussed. Is good science absent from TV? I think no easy answer exists – interesting science abounds, possible technological breakthroughs are disseminated, the caveat being they are usually presented as ‘ready to roll’, though they may still be prototypes.
Are there learning opportunities on TV? – My response is a resounding Yes! Each item that is presented as ‘scientific fact’, ‘scientific discovery’, ‘technological breakthrough’ and the like, that is of interest to me (or potentially to my students) opens up research to chase down the facts. Not sure if it truly applies to material that we acquire via the media, but caveat emptor does come to mind. Esat Atikkan
