Old Media, Not New, is the way for Scientists to Communicate

Modern environmental scientists are having difficulty with the information deficit model when it comes to conveying the urgent state of climate change to the American public.  And this understanding gap between the scientific community and the general public has been evident throughout history.  Some of the chief goals of scientific discovery are progress and innovation, both of which can go towards undermining the power of established institutions.  Look at the famed astronomer Galileo Galilei, who spent the waning years of his life under house arrest for challenging that the sun, and not the earth, was the center of our solar system.  This assertion flew in the face of church doctrine, and in Galileo’s time, the church was the most powerful institution in society.  Along with scientific discoveries undermining the establishment’s power, scientific discoveries can be freighting for people, and thus dismissed as not being factual or conclusive.  This is seen in the movie And the Band Played On, about the early research into the initial spreading and discovery of HIV/AIDS in the 1980’s.  The movie features several scenes where the public openly confronts the HIV/AIDS research scientists in a hostile manner, charging the scientists with having bias against the GLBT and other minority communities.  The research into the disease showed high rates of occurrence amongst certain demographic groups, and naturally this frightening data would be dismissed by some in the identified demographic groups.  And while the current issue of climate change is very different from the two examples I just gave, a similar out lash against scientific research is present.  Scientists are producing data that suggests global warming is an occurrence with catastrophic consequences that can only be solved if large and powerful corporations make costly, yet environmentally friendly, decisions (cap-in-trade).  Thus the current business establishments, like the church in Galileo’s time, are feeling that their power (and money) is being threatened by climate control scientists.  They will thus finance any and all scientists who come out and claim that climate change is not conclusive.  The American public may feel frightened by the prospects of global warming, and thus look for any opportunity to dismiss or discredit the climate control scientists (remember Climategate?   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy).

What scientists must do in order to overcome these forces and get their message about climate change across to the American public, is to find a better way to communicate and explain their environmental research and studies.  And while we have often talked about new social media in class (especially during Dr. Nisbet’s and Mr. Johnson’s lectures), I believe that the use of social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter will not be effective for scientists.  I understand that I am overtly stereotyping a whole profession, but I feel that scientists generally do not have the best communication skills.  Be it the hours they need to spend in labs, or the complexity of their work, but I would guess that most scientists trying to explain climate control would sound something like this guy.  I feel that a social media site or blog would have to be interesting in order for it to be frequented often, and I do not know if scientists have the skills or the time to produce interesting new media sites.  For day-to-day updates on climate control related news, I still think the public will turn first to the major news organizations (CNN, MSNBC, Fox News), before turning to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Twitter account.

            Where I think scientists can best get their message across to the American public is, not in new media outlets, but more traditional media outlets such as movies, TV shows, books and museum exhibits.  The movie An Inconvenient Truth brought public interest in climate control initiatives to some of its highest levels, and throughout recent American environmental history, books and TV shows have been used to successfully educate the public.  It was Rachel Carson’s book Silent Springs that jump started the environmental movement in this country half a century ago, and it was a TV show hosted by this guy that provided millions of people in my generation with a cool and interesting way to learn about science and the environment.  And nearly every city has a science museum, which can provide a whole family with a fun-filled day of learning about current environmental issues. 

It are these traditional outlets, and not the Twitter accounts and Facebook pages, that will help climate change scientists overcome the backlash their research endures from those who feel threatened or frightened by it.  

Damaged Objectivity: Television, Social Media and a Conflict of Interest

A television news show would not conclude their broadcast each night by advising viewers to go buy a can of Coke or Pepsi.  The anchor would not tell the audience to buy a Buick or to check out the newest line of Sony’s media products.  Promoting commercial goods, brands or corporations, like the ones just named, would seem out-of-place during a supposedly objective newscast, yet this same type of promotion occurs dozens of times during every news s on CNN, Fox News and MSNBC.  Each time an anchor utters the phrase “You can follow us on Facebook of Twitter”; they are engaging in the promotion of two private companies.  With ever increasing percentages of Americans (especially the younger demographic) getting their current events information from following news organizations on sites such as Facebook and Twitter, it is understandable why networks are pushing the interactive social media news sites.  Yet promoting the use of Facebook and Twitter presents a potential conflict of interests for the news networks.  Will the news networks objectively cover a story that deals with Facebook or Twitter if one of the news networks goals is to have their audience go on sites like Facebook and Twitter?  Hypothetically let’s say Facebook made a decision with the Chinese government to allow for severe governmental censorship of the website.  This would cause Facebook to be viewed negatively in the eyes of most Americans, for Americans tend to value the freedom of speech.  Could a newscast objectively cover and analyze a story that would cause viewers to be less favorable toward Facebook and then moments later advice the same audience to go to the newscasts page on Facebook?  Reporting something bad about Facebook may cause less people to go on Facebook and thus less people to go on the newscasts Facebook page.  Conflict of interest?  I think so.  This would be like a news show that ends its telecast each night with the recommendation to buy Pepsi trying to remain credible and objective when reporting on a new study that reveals Pepsi causes scurvy.  This conflict of interest will only intensify if and when Facebook and Twitter decide to go public http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/06/technology/facebook_ipo_2012/index.htm. 

The desire for profits will intensify with a publically traded company, and the objectively and integrity of television newscasts, the outlet that 73% of Americans still use for their primary source of news, may be compromised.  The French government has recognized this conflict of interest and in response has banned the promotion of Facebook and Twitter on all its newscasts.  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/03/french-ban-twitter-facebook_n_871153.html

Now I understand there is a downsized to banning the promotion of specific social media sites on newscasts.  And let me be clear that I am not against the use of social media sites like Facebook and Twitter.  I think they are great.  And by not reminding the audiences to check out these social media sites, fewer people may actual use the sites.  These sites have become an incredibly effective way to get information out and mobilize movements for millions across the world, and American’s may become “out of the loop” if we do not continue to utilize social media.  In places like China and the Middle East, social media sites have been the facilitator for protests and uprisings (just look at Egypt and Tunisia).  Facebook feeds and Twitter posts are many Americans only direct window into the lives of those living in nations all around the world where monumental events are transpiring.  By encouraging a viewer to go to the CNN Facebook or Twitter page, they are encouraging the viewer to learn more about what is occurring in parts of the world where media is not very accessible.  Take China for example and this tweet found on through the CNN Facebook page http://twitter.com/#!/cnnbrk/status/81762402630246400. 

So yes, social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter are immensely beneficial to nearly all citizens of the world, be they from the freest of nations or the most oppressive.  And I would encourage everyone I come across to use social media sites in order to experience a unique form of news.  Yet where there is a major issue is when a major news network has their anchors promoting specific social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter.  I can get away with promoting these sites because I am not in the business of covering and analyzing the major news stories of each day.  But the conflict arises when you are promoting specific sites while being in the business of "objectively" covering the news.  This presents a potentially significant conflict of interest, and I believe legislation modeled after the French ban will be needed to maintain the integrity of news coverage in the United States. 

Universities working as facilitators to connect different cultures.

            There is no doubting that modern ICTs are reaching more and more people in the developing world.  There will be 6 billion cell phones in use by 2012, there are currently over 1.5 billion Internet users, and the World Summit on the Information Society set 2015 as the target year for the entire world to be connected through ICT.  What is more difficult to specifically identify is just how impactful these ICTs are for the world, particularly for the billions across the globe who reside in what is known as the Bottom of the Pyramid.  The Bottom of the Pyramid (BOP) is made up of the world’s poorest, who in this new age are often representing a potential market for new information and communication technologies.  These technologies allow for more efficiency and mobility in the professional and personal lives of those at the BOP, and the advent of the ICTs has lead to the blurring of the divisions between one’s professional and personal lives as discussed by Jonathan Donner in the reading Blurring Livelihoods and Lives.  For example, a farmer in India can one minute be taking a call from an agricultural supplier about an incoming shipment, and the next minute be answering a cell phone from his wife about what time the family meal will start at.  New technologies are helping to enhance both the professional and personal aspects of the lives of those at the BOP, and I believe the professional and personal impacts of technologies like computers, cell phones and the internet can be made even more powerful if universities in the developed world (such as Cornell) use their resources to be a sort of facilitating middleman between workers in the developed and developing world.

            Below is how I see a university facilitating personal and professional growth among people at both the bottom of the pyramid and the working class of the developed world.   We will be using Cornell University for this example.  Along with being one of, if not the leading agricultural institution in the world, Cornell is located in an agriculturally rich region of the United States.  Surrounding the Ithaca campus is hundreds of local farmers who produce a myriad of crops in the Finger Lakes region.  Through the resources of the University and modern ICTs, the farmers of the Finger Lakes region could be connected to the farmers of the developing world to form a type of foreign exchange for farmers.  This exchange will benefit both parties personally and professionally.  Professionally, the two parties can share information about different agricultural production techniques or technology uses.  With the agriculture department of Cornell providing research on the newest information and innovations in farming, the farmers in Central New York and the farmers in the developing world (say a rural town in India) can share their experiences with the new innovations from the University.  This sharing of information and techniques has the potential to teach both parties how to better produce their crops.  Yet in the way ICTs fuse the components of lives and livelihoods together, this farmers-exchange between two cultures can go beyond business to benefit both parties.  Connecting farmers from different worlds can promote a more comprehensive cultural and societal understanding, and this understanding of different peoples daily ways of life can make the people participating in the exchange more complete individuals overall.  The decisions of the farmers in the exchange may be altered in a positive way due to their being exposed to similar peoples half way across the map. 

            The world is becoming more global, and ICTs are paving the way for more and more people to become connected.  By serving as a liaison between the farmers of North America and the farmers of the developing world, Cornell University has the ability to foster the state of global agriculture.  Moving beyond the specific example of farming and Cornell University, any number of higher-level educational institutions within the core nations can act as a middleman between two groups of peoples.  Combining the research capabilities of the school with the ever developing ICTs can help better the working and living conditions for millions of people living within a more connected globe.