Re: Media Bashing Without a License

[BFLOOD@SLAC.Stanford.EDU (Bob Flood)]

The non-adversarial approach seems very practical, and, even though it
reachs a limited fraction of the press, it's an improvement over where we
are today. It would be nice if the press covering our area were as
knowledgable of the subject as John Madden is of pro football, but they
aren't. If the situation is to improve, we have improve it.

>>We have seen much criticism of our free press, the criticism being well
>>presented and well deserved. Nevertheless, we are stuck with one unshakable
>>principle: in a free enterprise system, bad news is big business, and good
>>news won't sell newspapers or advertising space. I have come to a personal
>>conclusion that there are more reporters than news, which only serves to
>>enhance the competition to "develop" stories that are more attention-getting
>>than your competitors'.
>>
>>Howvere, this is getting us nowhere. The press is a subset of that general
>>amalgamation called the public, and the press received the same education in
>>physics as that 'public.' As was well stated earlier, we are each
>>knowledgable in our specialty, as is most everyone else. Why should a civil
>>engineer (an oxymoron?) know anything about health physics any more than I
>>should understand civil engineering? The flaw is that technical issues in
>>civil engineering are not decided by political consensus, whereas our issues
>>are. Unless someone knows of way to change that, we best find a way to
>>improve the knowledge of the public, or learn to accept the public consensus.
>>
>>Speculation, personal type: the ABC piece was on the subject of the 'nuclear
>>bomb squad' and the LANL stuff with the plutonium was just an intro. I
>>suspect that DOE wanted to publicize the squad (it is appropriation time,
>>after all), and the unprecedented LANL tour/access may have been the price
>>they had to pay to interest ABC. Maybe?
>>Bob Flood
>>Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
>>(415) 926-3793
>>bflood@slac.stanford.edu
>
>I should know better, but here goes.  I agree that the media is what it is
>and it will not be changed by us.  However we can add a credible voice when
>it is needed.  One positive action, which was effective in liberal Northern
>California, was to have a media session, which we sponsored through our
>local HPS chapter.  Print and tv people (about 10, who were responsible for
>the "science and technology beat") came and we just had a Q&A on any topic
>thay had in mind.  In two hours we, (about 5 of us), quietly gave a few of
>very short "micro-tutorials" on current issues.  There was little publicity
>and we were sure to let them know that; it was really their show!  They are
>very busy, live by moment to moment deadlines and really have no time to
>learn physics, science or toxicology.  But they value anyone who can
>separate the significant from the inconsequential, and who can explain
>technical things with monosyllabic clarity.  Here is one arena where a
>little education can really be amplified, if you remember to separate your
>opinions from the facts.  (or be sure to state which is which).
>
>But more important, our local media folks got to know the names of some
>local expertise to call on when they had an issue or question.  It can be
>quite non-adversarial and if the soap-boxing is left out, it really does
>have credibility.  Since their turnover is high, it is useful to do this
>every couple of years.  As an information interaction, it should give no
>one's employer any concern.  Like, chicken soup, it may not do any good,
>but it won't do any harm!
>
>What do you think of this?
>
>Marvin Goldman
>
>
>
Bob Flood
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.
(415) 926-3793
bflood@slac.stanford.edu