It has often been argued that the natural sciences and technology form the basis of our modern societies. To enable a democratic society to respond appropriately to scientific developments, citizens must be informed about the sciences – both in terms of their content and their social determinants and impacts. Apart from the education system, the most important – and virtually the only – source of information about science is the mass media. They play a key role in shaping the relationship between the public and the ‘subsystem’ of science.

In this context, it is interesting to ask how science is portrayed on television. What information about science is conveyed to the public? What (if any) criteria are provided for assessing science and its importance to society?

In light of these and other questions, we recorded approximately 220 ‘science programmes’ over two periods (January–March 1996, March–May 1998), totalling 110 hours. 80 per cent of the programmes were broadcast between 17.45 and 23.00, and their duration ranged from 15 minutes to one hour. Around 80 per cent of the programmes are regular features, mainly magazine programmes, but there are also historical, highly topical or entertainment programmes. 60 per cent of the programmes deal with several subject areas. The content mainly covers technical, medical and environmental topics. Often, a qualifying descriptor such as ‘sociological’, ‘political’, ‘socio-economic’ or ‘socio-psychological’ is also applicable.

Physics topics were covered during approximately 10–15 per cent of the broadcasting time, partly in short films (lasting a few minutes) within magazine programmes, and partly in programmes devoted to a single topic. It is these physics programmes on which we focus. Drawing an initial conclusion, we found that physics appears to be well-suited to television owing to its spectacular and entertaining qualities, as well as its history (which is often reduced to the history of ‘ingenious researchers’). Telegenic topics that recurred frequently include chaos, astrophysics, research into ice, nanosystems and comets, for example.

We have examined several presentations in greater detail (chaos, nanotechnology, astrophysical questions, ‘dangerous comets’) and compared them with one another. With regard to fundamental dimensions, we refer to the work of Bärbel Freud, Dietrich Meutsch (1), Didier Dufresnoy (2) and others. No papers relating to the specifications for physics education were available to us.

With regard to ‘image discussions’, carried out as part of a pilot study on popular science images (3), we have attempted to record the impressions at various semantic and expressive levels (sound and image levels with their respective sub-levels – spoken text, music, discussion, live or recorded sound, studio broadcast, report, full-frame or close-up, etc.).

By way of illustration, we report, by way of example and very briefly, some observations on how scientists (in our context, physicists) are portrayed on television. It is well known that there are more male than female physicists, but, astonishingly enough, on TV there seem to be only male ones, at least in our sample. These scientists are portrayed as individuals responsible for the advancement of science (quote: ‘Professor XY has taken the leading position in nanotechnology worldwide’). Even if this is not the case, their work is presented as cutting-edge research, as highly significant and as brand new; the researchers, of course, share the same qualities. The context can be rather sensational: scenes before, after or in the background show erupting volcanoes, clips from spectacular films or scenes from real-life accidents. Furthermore, the music can evoke associations and meanings that go far beyond the spoken commentary. The camera angle is quite often from below, which lends the person being shown a particularly authoritative stance.

In our sample, scientists do not generally seem interested in considering or using the simplest form of expression. They appear to take familiarity with technical terms (‘the universe decouples into one with an electromagnetic force and so on’, ‘as close as ten to minus forty-three seconds’) for granted; nobody explains or clarifies these expressions, neither the scientist nor the journalist. The authority of scientists appears to extend beyond the boundaries of their discipline or their expertise: physicists are asked questions about politics, religion, economics, psychology and so on. In short, scientists on television are mostly presented as authorities (in both visual and auditory terms) who are not questioned or criticised. Their work is highly important, but in most cases so complicated that it is impossible to explain to the public what is actually happening and what it means. Of course, these remarks refer to a sort of average of the programmes in our sample and apply to many, but not to all of them; there are exceptions and deviations from this broad-brush picture.

Our preliminary analysis leads to some tentative conclusions, which we present below in concise form. There are several possible ‘models’ of scientific communication, such as diffusion, translation, social education, ‘ersatz’ knowledge, interpretation of nature and so on (cf. for example 5). In what follows, we focus on the two roles of the journalist: as a populariser and as an independent observer.

1. Popularising science is traditionally regarded as one of the primary aims of science programmes. However, examples that succeed in this are few and far between, at least in our sample. Where the scope for ‘interactive learning’ is considerably limited, special attention should be paid to the ‘comprehensibility’ of the presentation from a didactic perspective. Instead, journalists and the scientists interviewed often content themselves with false analogies or apodictic statements when faced with complex scientific facts; in the name of simplification, ‘major errors’ are accepted. The mere fact that educationally constructive, multi-part programmes are hardly ever broadcast at all means that the promotion of reflection and understanding—which is characteristic of science—falls prey to mere ‘information’ and to typical audiovisual consumption. The facts presented in science programmes are fundamentally dependent on conventions and concepts, as well as on the professionalism of the producers and those around them.

2. Whilst more or less all programmes are characterised by a fundamental ‘lack of scientific accuracy’, there are surprisingly significant differences. On the one hand, we find programmes (possibly with a somewhat elitist slant) which offer a considerably more precise presentation than is usual; on the other hand, there are productions which appeal to the emotions and tend to mystify the subject through suggestive close-ups, background music and key visual cues. In line with Didier Dufresnoy’s findings, we observed such differences when comparing certain French and German productions (4). One may assume that these differences are not solely attributable to the producers and creators, but that they also reflect social trends. In view of this, it would be very interesting to compare science programmes in different countries (at present, a similar survey is being carried out with regard to science news by Winfried Göpfert et al.).

3. The programmes we investigated make use of concepts of science and scientific work that are partly outdated and partly rudimentary. The role of the scientist often appears to be shaped by the romantic ideal: solitary, a genius, rather strange and sometimes as incomprehensible as his science. Science is presented as truth, as something absolute and certain, which nevertheless incorporates elements of sorcery and magic. The impression is conveyed that science has an answer for every question and is capable of bringing everything under control. We note that, in most cases, the scientists appear to assist in staging this image of science; at the very least, there is no protest. In line with the politics of the Reagan era, heterodox concepts of scientific work and motivation, as presented in ‘Science Studies’, have been challenged in the name of allegedly absolute standards of science (‘science wars’). Television programmes generally do not champion nuanced views on this issue. Occasionally, there are critical remarks about ‘experts’ and ‘specialists’; however, the social concepts of problem-solving and the generation of progress are hardly ever discussed.

4. Another model does not view science journalists primarily as conveyors of scientific knowledge, but as independent observers who should not act in accordance with rules dictated by science (e.g. Matthias Kohring (6) even calls for a general decoupling of journalistic science reporting from the concept of science popularisation). Accordingly, science journalism should encourage the public to form its own independent views on science and must provide suitable guidance for social action. This function cannot be identified in the physics feature in our sample. Indeed, as a rule, the presentation endeavours to remain as close to science as possible and appears to be guided by the intrinsic demands of the scientific subject matter. In most cases, the producers’ own positions do not become apparent. This gives the impression of an uncritical attitude towards science and scientists in general, and in some discussions (e.g. when the scientist begins a sentence which the journalist kindly completes, and vice versa) of a kind of silent complicity.

In summary, our preliminary analysis leads to the conclusion that the examples we investigated convey neither adequate popularised scientific knowledge nor adequate social orientation. It is not primarily science or its social impact that is presented in the science programmes, but rather the medium of television itself; in this sense, science programmes are more or less a form of public relations for science.

Admittedly, these statements are somewhat oversimplified and possibly a little provocative. In reality, there are many players involved, and it is not just one or two who can be blamed. Nevertheless, confining the discussion to the interaction between scientists and journalists seems a meaningful first step, given its particular importance.

Of course, there is no quick fix to address these shortcomings, but one might argue along two lines: 1) It is well known that, in general, the working conditions of (science) journalists are quite stressful: there are too few journalists and, at times, immense time pressure, etc. These circumstances can clearly affect the quality of reporting; for example, they do not allow for lengthy and thorough investigation of scientific topics and their impact on society. A change in these working conditions would be necessary and highly desirable, but it is not easy to see how this could be achieved in the current situation. 2) The scientific community must recognise that it has a responsibility to popularise science and that, to a certain extent, this is its own responsibility (7). At first glance, this point should be easier to realise than the previous one. On the other hand, it would entail a shift in the traditional image of a scientist, as popularisation is generally not regarded as a scientific task, but rather as a rather inferior form of work.

The journalist who is knowledgeable about science and acts as an independent, critical and professional observer; the scientist who is familiar with the history of their subject and the social implications of their work, and regards popularisation as one of their primary duties – it seems we are still a long way from achieving this objective.

References

1. Bärbel Freund, Dietrich Meutsch (Eds.): Television Journalism and the Sciences; Opladen, Westdeutscher Verlag 1990
2. Didier Dufresnoy: The Place of Scientific Programmes on Television. Why Are They So Rare in France?; DEA dissertation, CNAM, Paris 1994
3. Klaus Schlüpmann: An expression of societal ‘visualisation’? Modernisation in visual material 1945–present; Final report, AGIS Oldenburg, 1997
4. Jochen Pade, Klaus Schlüpmann: Market-oriented science? Physics in television science programmes; AGIS Texts 18, Oldenburg 1997
5. Yves Jeanneret: Writing about Science: Forms and Challenges of Popularisation; Presse Universitaires de France, Paris 1994
6. Matthias Kohring: Should the newspaper dictate the laws of science?; Radio and Television (1998) 2–3, pp. 175–192
7. Jochen Pade: Scientific topics do not contribute much to entertainment value; Physikalische Blätter 54 (1998) No. 1, pp. 55–56

Talk given at the 5th International Conference on Public Communication of Science and Technology ‘
: Science without frontiers – Science – Media – Public’
Berlin, 17–19 September 1998

© and responsible for this page: