The sorry state of 'science' programming on TV

Im sitting here watching "The Spear of Jesus" on the Discovery Times channel. It deals with the Spear of Longinus, the one that supposedly pierced the side of Jesus, and became embued with magical powers because of Jesus's blood. The only science in the entire program revolves around taking the spear, which has been in an Austrian museum, and having it analysed to properly date it and see if it could really be from around the time of Christ, thats it. Unfortunately, 99% of the hour long program is devoted to cheesy, slow motion reenactments, with an actor with a Roman helmet, thrusting a spear, or of Constantine, various European Kings and notables who came into contact with it, and finally US soldiers in post war Berlin who supposedly found it. Literally, most of the time, youre looking at a spear, revolving in slow motion, blurring in and out of focus. They leave the actual scientific information for the last 4 minutes of the program. Obviously, the magical spear stuff is a bunch of nonsense, but it could have been a perfect opportunity to explain how forensics work, metal working techniques in ancient Rome and the Middle Ages, etc.

Im picking on this show because I happened to be watching it, but much of science programming is the same. Whether its killer asteroids, neanderthals, history, you name it, very little information is imparted, and virtually the entire programs are about lame, cheesy special effects, and bad actors in bad make-up or costumes.

Carl Sagans 'Cosmos' had the balance just right: Lots of real information and education, with some special effects thrown in to underscore the narration.Why has the balance shifted almost completely from education to 'entertainment'?

[/rant]

Nothing to add; I agree completely. Blech.

Yeah,Sagan was influencial in my school that i was growing up,there was alot of young kids painting grafitti on walls all over my town[including me ]saying,"Sagan Rulez"!

Is Nova still on? There's a show I used to like, haven't caught it lately though.

Renata said:

Nothing to add; I agree completely. Blech.

Click to expand...

Isnt it frustrating? You check to see whats on, see soemthing that looks very interesting and then instead of knowledge, youre given a bunch of third rate computer special effects and bad acting. The show before this one on the same channel was about early human anscestors. This time the viewer was subjected to actors portraying the personal lives of 19th and early 20th century archeologists. They actually spent about 10 minutes showing domestic squabbles between a scientist and his wife. What the hell??

Nova and Nature are still on; they're pretty good, but there's still room for better.

What? You are upset they didnt have Bill Nye toss it into a vat of acid? Shrug.

Science programming has definitely gone downhill: most of the big specials like the one you mentioned seem to have about 10 minutes of science for every 45 of filler. I suspect Discovery and the like are trying to reach the lowest common denominator to catch the largest audience, and assumes our collective brow is pretty low. I know there are a lot of idiots out there, but why does a supposed science and technology channel have to cater to everyone!

Nova and Nature could be much better, but compared to the rest of the garbage out there, theyre great. With the explosion of channels, on paper, it would appear that theres lots of science programming, but there really isnt.

Mob, I was flabbergasted recently to see Bill Nye the Science Guy on CNN as a science consultant. The airhead newsreader actually referred to him repeatedly as 'The Science Guy'

While I agree with you on the state of science shows, I don't think you picked a good example for your initial post. I would consider that particular airing more of a history show than a science show.

CartesianFart said:

Yeah,Sagan was influencial in my school that i was growing up,there was alot of young kids painting grafitti on walls all over my town[including me ]saying,"Sagan Rulez"!

Click to expand...

I wish I had gone to your school. If I had been caught by my classmates putting Sagan graffiti up, Id probably be checking out of the hospital around now.

VRW, like I said above, a show about history can also have alot of hard core science. They could have imparted information on metal working in the Roman Empire, but thats just one angle, there are others. Shows strictly about history havent escaped either BTW. Look at the programming on the History Channel for example.

Anyone from Canada ever watch Daily Planet? It's a pretty good daily science show, albeit a bit cheesy...

I wouldnt worry about it,Bozo.If you are knowledgeable in Science and various histories by reading in libraries and other free public places in the internet,why worry that tv doesnt give what you want?

MobBoss said:

What? You are upset they didnt have Bill Nye toss it into a vat of acid? Shrug.

Click to expand...

He explained pretty clearly what he expected and why he was upset -- why trivialize it with a straw man?

Renata said:

He explained pretty clearly what he expected and why he was upset -- why trivialize it with a straw man?

Click to expand...

Yeah I know At least he inadvertently gave me the opportunity to extend my rant to CNN using him as science consultant.

Cart, as someone who's always been interested in science, and was greatly influenced by science shows (like Cosmos for example) on TV as a kid, I cant help but be concerned about what passes for science these days on television.

The problem with science programming in tv or any kind of 'popular' science is that it tried to appeal to the lowest common denominator in our society. Unfortunately, it seems (for whatever reason) the LCD keeps getting lower and lower. I wonder why!

One might argue that popular science does the great service of spreading some interest in science by trying to get thru to everyone. WHile there might be some truth in that I wonder how much disservice it does by trivializing everything to that extent.

IMHO, a better option would be Why not try to appeal to the group who are at least some extent above teh LCD? That way things do not need to be trivialized and the service to science is also done.

But of course, then ratings suffer. And we all know how important that is.

So, the conclusion is that science should be learned from reading books and not watching tv (and that goes for you too Bozo )

I think Bill Nye is actually decently qualified, if I recall correctly.

Daily Planet is quite good actually - you can tell (just like with CBC's Quirks and Quarks) that the hosts are totally 'pro space', because they bring an additional enthusiam to those stories. However, I like it because they preview what they're going to report on in a predictable manner, so I can channel surf for awhile and come back to watch the report I'm interested in. Unlike the news, which doesn't tell you what order they'll do the story in.

betazed said:

IMHO, a better option would be Why not try to appeal to the group who are at least some extent above teh LCD? That way things do not need to be trivialized and the service to science is also done.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The person who eagerly awaits a show called "Fauna of the Pleistocene" (or whatever) isnt the same person watching VH1's Countdown of 100 Coolest People. So why dumb down the science program to the level of the VH1-head? The VH1-head isnt watching anyway, and the people who WOULD have watched the science show are just disgusted and tune out, and may not return next time for another program. Makes no sense to me.

So, the conclusion is that science should be learned from reading books and not watching tv (and that goes for you too Bozo )

Click to expand...

Absolutely, no argument there. But man does not live by books alone. Theres no reason why just because something is on TV it has to be pitched to lobotomized retards. Interesting, well produced science shows can lead laymen to read books, where they learn much more. Kids too. Who knows how many first rate scientists today chose that career path because they were influenced by Sagan on TV as kids?

The worst part, IMHO, is when they do investigations of supernatural events or UFOs, etc. They are always so careful to give both sides equal treatment that one is left thinking that all points of view are valid. WIld theorys and blatent misrepresentations are swallowed whole. I'll bet your Spear of Jesus show was a good example of this Bozo.

El_Machinae said:

I think Bill Nye is actually decently qualified, if I recall correctly.

Click to expand...

Bill Nye, while undoubtedly a genius populizer of science and a very creative mechanical engineer is no substitute for an expert within the field in question.

I'll have to agree with Bozo's sentiments. The only really decent thing out now is Nova and Nature.

Best to stick to books.