Media and Science - Securing the Future - Essay Example

Media and Science: Securing the Future The society relies on the information it gets from media in almost every sector. Modern society has embraced the use of technology in almost every sector. Technology has made transport system effective, banking system, Medicare and other social issues in the society better than they used to be. When one mentions technology in the modern society, science crops into the mind. It is evident that technology is all about science and its principle. Media plays a vital role in disseminating information in the society (Bell). Scientists come up with new inventions, which they make known to the society through the media. In the perspective of social theorists, media and science shape the future of our society. This essay analyses the extent to which media and science influence the future of the society. The report presented by Science and Media Expert Group about the role of science and media in influencing the future of the society bears similar reflection addressed by Hiltgartner report. Hiltgartner (519) argued that science finds its acceptance in the society through popularization. He asserted that the flexibility that scientists enjoy in the society is due to the mode of popularization of scientific discourse. A close comparison of this statement and views provided by the business expert indicates that science and media are forces, which influence societal development. The experts argued in their report that businesses in the modern society must acknowledge the functions of media and science in the modern society if these businesses are to be viable. It is evident that scientists use the services of the media to innovate new technology. Media expresses various concern in the society which scientists are not able to get if the information remain hidden. Hiltgartner believed that innovation occurs in the society because of various challenges, which the society faces (520). Such challenges influence the thinking of scientists to come up with a solution to societal problems. Hiltgartner’s report argued that scientific reports presented in the media influence debates in political scenes of the society (520). For instance, the cancer debate presented by the media influenced the Americans’ view about their diets and lifestyles. Scientists are keen to address issues that hit the headlines in media (520). Hiltgartner observed that the media reports influenced government debates, research reports from National Cancer Institute, law review articles and magazines among others. Hiltgartner explained that a publication made touching on the causes of cancer attracted various reviews, thereby popularizing the issues. Evidently, science and media in the society work simultaneously in addressing issues in the society. However, Hiltgartner argues that popularized reports are inadequate sources of scientific research. Scientists analyzing the popularized reports concentrate the studies outside the core issues, because they tend to address the exaggerations in the popularized reports. Science and Media Expert Group team noted that scientific reviews contain vital information about issues in the society; however, editors of such reports are not necessarily scientists. The question of balance when it comes to journalistic work and science seem to attract more attention in both sides. Arguably, some concepts presented in scientific reviews sometimes incline of political grounds where popular views thrush real information. He observed that some journalist reporting scientific reviews do not necessarily need to be scientists in order to present an issue touching on science. The work presented to a journalist is to work out the paper by ironing out various issues that it intends to address, and put it in the right language. Hiltgartner asserts that it is important for the society to identify the boundary between popularized reports and genuine reports (522). Science and Media Expert Group committee report argued that the consistency in writing scientific reports that are genuine lies with the training that a journalist should get. Notably, the report echoed similar views to Hiltgartner claims, which had indicated that people should be able to identify genuine reports from popularized reports. It is apparent that journalist should not only give reports that excite at the public eye, but also real content that has scientific facts. Scientific issues are so sensitive to the society and they need not to have any amount of exaggeration (Bucchi 58). Arguably, exaggerated scientific information does not present genuine facts to the society. Scientists do not only suffer the pain of explaining to the society the errors indicated in exaggerated reports, but also suffer the pain of researching on fictitious information. Hiltgartner in his report argued by citing various ways that the society should apply when it comes to identifying genuine reports and exaggerated scientific reviews. He cited reasoning as an aspect that the society must embrace when it comes to handling issues raised by journalists. The same ideas tend to feature in the report by the Science and Media Expert Group committee. The Science and Media Expert Group necessitates training of journalists over scientific reviews as a means that would stem the problem of exaggeration. The society is aware about hyperboles used by media personalities when they make their presentations (Bell). However, I think that hyperboles used in media presentations do not alter scientific facts concerning a specific field. The Science and Media Expert Group report reflects on the problems that occur when journalists distort the quality of scientific information they present to the public. This statement concurs with views presented by Hiltgartner over ambiguous boundary that exists between popularized information and pure facts. The society would go for the popular view, yet this would not address various components that the review ought to cover. Hiltgartner noted that various observers would make different observation regarding a particular fact depending on the nature of its presentation. Surprising, scientific facts are far from myths. In essence, science writing should not favor the popular view, but the genuine view (Wilsdon & Willis 26). For instance, a flaw about scientific causes of cancer is not an issue that the society would take lightly. Various stakeholders in the society would address various concerns highlighted in the journal or review because of the weight that the issue has to the society. The judgment made by observers would influence the society. It is evident that ambiguous information presented in scientific reviews requires further research or another mode of presentation as proposed by Hiltgartner. Science and Media Expert Group settle on Hiltgartner argument that scientists accuse media for distorting scientific information. It is quite hard to explain how arts journalist would adequately address scientific facts, which require expertise explanations. Simplification of scientific reports by journalists tends to exempt various facts concerning the scientific aspects (Wilsdon & Willis 26). This exposes the society to the perils associated with exaggerated information. Arguably, when this happens the society would not be admitting the naked truth pertaining scientific information. Instead, it would be consuming the distorted version. For instance, Poll and Doll report about cancer influenced the public opinion about eating and their regard to cancer. The influence of the media report was evident when the government used the information published in the media to drum various measures, which the society should adopt regarding cancer. Changes in mass media are apparent in the society. Media companies have been using trained journalists from various universities to undertake various roles in scientific reporting. This trend has not changed although the media houses have taken the initiative of training scientific journalists. This move is very encouraging because the society expects to get filtered information regarding scientific facts. Science media courses are some advancement that the media industry has done in response to science reporting. Report indicates that science media courses have attracted a good number of researchers who want to give science reporting the right taste. Analysts have indicated that the media industry is likely to adopt a new culture when training in science journalism become eminent. Evidently, expertise culture could form the basis of future reporting in scientific journals or writings. Explanation against this tends to underscore that fact that a scientist researcher would not let ambiguous information penetrate media journals when the scientists have the fact to present to the society. BBC has created a training program, which aims at training journalists who cover scientific reviews. The program would change the face of journalism in the society, because it seeks to introduce expertise when it comes to matters of scientific journalism. In the BBC training package, scientific programs seem to take the centre initiative of the course. Materials provided to journalist through these program cover contents would eliminate scientific ambiguity when it comes to reporting on scientific issues. The society has also witnessed emergence of trusts and foundations which seek to provide scholarship to scientists who are willing to create impact in the society. Research done by scientists on issues affecting the society have to undergo some verification processes in order to ascertain validity of claims presented in the research. The future of science and media tends to take the new shape, which would give evidence on information highlighted through the media. I think this would save the society from the burden of consuming popularized scientific information, which has limited facts about the content. Broadcast science is quickly taking shape in the current world. Many media houses broadcast or present scientific programs to the society. This growing trend makes scientific media training relevant because the society is keen at consuming scientific programs. Challenges in constituting scientific training programs still haunt the science programs. The business reports note that funding for science programs are inadequate, but grants have sustained the program. Analysts have observed a further change in science programs in the media industry. In conclusion, the debate on scientific media contends that media popularizes science in the society. Many people give various judgments to media presentations thereby influencing the kind of information the media should cover in science. Media industry has failed to present clear scientific facts in the past (Wilsdon & Willis 26), However, the modern development in the media industry indicates that science journalism is quickly gaining roots in the society. Training of science journalist is a step that would stump the problem of ambiguity that media creates when it covers on scientific facts. Bringing specialist to cover on scientific articles would present clear information to the society. Works cited Bucchi, Massimiano. Handbook of Public Communication and Technology. Of deficits, deviations and dialogues Theories of public communication of science. London: Routledge International. Science and media expert group. Science and the Media: Securing the Future. Web 26 Mar 2012. http://interactive.bis.gov.uk/scienceandsociety/site/media/files/2010/01/Science-and-the-Media-Securing-the-Future.pdf Bell, Alice. Science and the Mass Media. Models of science, the media and the public. Hilgartner, Stephen. Social Studies of Science. The Dominant View of Popularization: Conceptual Problems, Political Uses. London: Sage Publications Wilsdon, James & Willis, Rebecca. See-through Science. Why public engagement needs to move upstream. Demos. Read More