Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Television Media Science

Wanted: a Real Science Channel 408

Posted by michael from the dream-on dept.
You ever thought about what a real science channel would look like? Something to counter fakers and disinformation? Maybe it can happen.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wanted: a Real Science Channel More

Wanted: a Real Science Channel

Comments Filter:

  • I, for one! (Score:3, Funny)

    by bluethundr ( 562578 ) * on Friday October 17, 2003 @06:31PM (#7244831) Homepage Journal
    I, for one, WELCOME all of the doubters of the American Space program! [badastronomy.com] It'll make it much easier to send them all packing on the 'B Ark' currently on the launchpad at Cape Canaveral!
    • I'm just worried about the Flat Earth Society staging a protest.

  • I hope it will fly, but I have doubts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nystul555 ( 579614 ) * on Friday October 17, 2003 @06:32PM (#7244835)
    This sounds like a great idea. I would LOVE to have a true science channel - it would be enough to get me to finally purchase cable!

    But would it work? Most of American knows nothing about science. They are far more likely to be entertained and interested in psychics, the paranormal, and well, science-esque stories that they can understand.

    Lets look at what popular now. Reality TV. Does it get any more mindless than that? Sitcoms are still popular, even though 95% of them are almost identical to eachother, and they repeat the same plots and stories that they have for years. Most movies that come out are unoriginal, and often the ones that do the best are the ones that stray the furthest from scientific fact.

    It seems that people do not want to learn any longer. They do not want to be challenged. They just want to live in their shells, believing what they have always believed, thinking what they have always thought. And I'm afraid that for that reason, a science channel might not go over very well.

    However, on the other hand, maybe having a good science channel would help to draw interest to science and facts. Maybe it would help to disprove psychics and other con-artists, maybe it could help teach people about how our world really works, and how things really are.

    I hope so. But I kind of doubt it. I'm afraid most people would rather watch the same reruns of the same mindless crap over and over again.

    • But would it work? Most of American knows nothing about science. They are far more likely to be entertained and interested in psychics, the paranormal, and well, science-esque stories that they can understand.

      I think this is an important point. One of the things that keeps people from being interested in science is the "high barriers to entry". I'm not saying that the average person is too dumb to understand science -- not at all. The problem is that all too often science is described in scientific ja

      • While I don't have the grades to prove it, I've been accused of being able to explain anything. Probably because I grok the concepts, but don't give a darn about the math.

        Take fiber optic cable for instance. How many folks out there really know how fiber-optic cable works? It's basic optics applied in a radical way.

        Fiber-Optic cable is actually made up [CLICK]

        And next on "Crossing over with John Edwards..."

      • Well, one of the nice things about the magazine this article was in -- Scientific American -- is that it is easy for a layperson to understand what's going on. Even still, it is not a magazine most people would read for fun. Because no matter how much you explain topics like quantum mechanics or general relativity -- which, at their heart, are neither difficult to understand nor math intensive -- they will always SEEM like they are hard to understand, for the very reason that they require so much explanat
    • It seems that people do not want to learn any longer.

      Any longer? I must have missed that part of human history where the majority of people had an interest in science and other pursuits of knowledge.

      Always keep in mind that we look back through history in a narrow tube which shows us the important events (in hindsight) and people. The majority have and will always be of the type who don't question things to any great degree. This is not new, it is not caused by MTV or reality TV (both symptoms, not

    • Lets look at what popular now. Reality TV. Does it get any more mindless than that?

      How about a Reality Science show? You know, watching real scientists do things like graph data, get the right glassware, and think about stuff?

      • ROFL!!! I just see myself in college with my safety goggles on carefully weighing Ca0 powder. Going to the library and making photocopies. Too funny.

        Interestingly enough, this is also why any show or movie about computer geeks is doomed to failure (unless it is a documentary). People are bored stiff by what we do everyday at work and at home.
    • One problem is that the people exposing fraudsters often end up with anti-defamation lawsuits like the Amazing Randi (or some similar guy). He exposed possible tricks used by alleged psychics and had to defend himself in court.

      If you make a show on how to protect yourself against even certifiably criminal type telephone con artists, you might get slammed with a lawsuit from a big telemarketing association.
    • Stop beating around the bush and blaming the "unwashed masses". The problem is that real science is boring. Chemists very rarely make funny-colored clouds and explosions, physicists don't play with particle acccelerators and electrostatic generators all day, and that's not even getting into the more observational fields like astronomy. To understand why a particular bit of lab work or a telescope session is important and exciting despite the appearance of tedium takes the same years of study and knowledge o
  • "REAL" science would probably not be interesting enough to be palatable to the masses. The (Discovery) Science Channel is probably the closest that you're going to get...
    • Yes, Discovery and its spawn started out with much more true science and documentary style programming, and look what they turned into.

      Any "real science" channel is going to end up transforming into the same type of thing as Discovery and the many channels it spawned as the bean counters in charge search for ways to increase viewership, and thus profitability.
      • I had a nice LONG reply typed out and formatted. I pressed the Preview key and get a 500. Is Slashdot being Slashdotted? I'm getting these with increasing frequency lately.

        I'm copying this message before I hit Submit or Preview.

    • I think there are plenty of cool science tricks they could squeeze in to keep you watching.

      "And now a word from our sponsor, and when we come back we'll throw this bar of sodium into a swimming pool!"

      "Welcome back, and how's our jello doing in that liquid nitrogen?"

      Gosh, high school chemistry could be like MAD TV...
    • Nova on PBS does more with a few hours a week than the Science Channel is able to do with seven whole day's worth of programming.
  • NPR's [npr.org] All Things Considered [npr.org] dedicates their entire show on fridays to exactly this sort of programming. Granted its only one day a week, but honestly, I don't think I would care to hear more than that. I do like that fact that you can call in and contribute the conversation, but I guess talk radio isn't for everybody.
  • Well at least they are denying the Landing on the moon and not The Existance of the moon it self [revisionism.nl]
  • The article complains that most current science channels "pander" to grab ratings by airing UFO specials and whatnot. Well jebus people, what does that tell you? It should tell you that the "real" science shows DON'T GET THE RATINGS. I agree that it'd be nice to have a "real" science channel, but it will die a horrible horrible death when people realize just how boring it is (to the masses).
    • Then why hasn't CSPAN died? Or CSPAN2? They're horribly boring, but they still manage to survive. Apparently, there is a niche for that type of programming, why not science?
      • My point is not that "it's boring so it won't survive".

        My point is that if the current science channels need to resort to "pandering" to make ratings, what makes anyone think that they can get enough ratings to live without "pandering"?
        • I don't get the impression that they will be trying to grab ratings to sell to advertisers like the traditional science-related channels. It sounds more like they'd stick a video camera in a university classroom and transmit that. (i.e. The CSPAN of Science). It seems this would require a fairly low-budget, and probably be supported by donations and grants. Therefore, no need to pander.

      • Re:Oh Get Real... (Score:3, Informative)

        by dasmegabyte ( 267018 )
        Because CSPAN, and CSPAN2, are in the regulation law for the cable networks. They HAVE to carry them, and as basic cable ($20/mo), too. That was one of the few restrictions that survived deregulation.

        Good thing it's in there, too. Because regardless of whether anybody watches them (and I know I don't...and I AM interested in government and the arts), CSPAN and CSPAN2 do not make any money for the cable companies, and that's bandwidth that could be used for a couple more home shopping networks.
    • "real" science shows DON'T GET THE RATINGS

      With each passing day, TV becomes more and more irrelevant. The only people watching that crap anymore are bored children, jockstrap drongos, and that great heard of idiots who seek to be titillated by talk show mopery, unfunny sitcoms, hollywood trash glitz, perhaps a monster truck or two, and the everpresent Daily Dose of Death which masquerades under the name "News."

      An interest in science bespeaks of at least SOME modicum of intelligence on the part of that pers

  • I like the discovery channel sometimes, even the shows where comedic (questionable) naturalists run around in the jungle molesting every animal they can find. Remember the PBS shows where you got to observe animals without someone running around trying to catch them? Ok, those were pretty boring. Educational TV just doesnt sell to the masses, and the masses are the ones watching all the TV out there.

    • Anyone remember TLC years ago? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by freeweed ( 309734 ) on Friday October 17, 2003 @08:14PM (#7245556)
      Ah, Discovery Channel. Where I fled after TLC turned into complete, utter garbage.

      TLC started by showing what seemed to be several hours a day of Connections, one of my favorite shows ever. Anyone know if you can get it on DVD?

      Within a few years, shit like Trading Spaces somehow got labelled as "learning", and now TLC is basically soap opera fluff on a low budget. A Dating Story, A Baby Story, A Makeover Story, While You Were Out... on and on with the sentimental Martha Stewart drivel.

      Perhaps the closest thing to educational on TLC is Junkyard Wars, which many Slashdotters swear by, but really: it's rocks for jocks, or rather, big hunks of metal being welded together for jocks.

      Discovery (I understand it's a bit different up here in Canada) lasted for a while longer, but sure enough, Crocodile Hunter started the downhill slope. Steve, after a few shows you're just not funny anymore, and I wish that damnable dog would get chunked by a croc someday.

      Now Discovery is about half "MONSTER GARAGE" (hey, it's how they pronounce it to make it sound cool to Joe SixPack) and its 80 other derivatives (monster HOUSE?!?! what kind of crack...).

      Another poster mentioned the National Geographic channel, and it's not bad, actually. A bit dry compared to Connections, but c'est la vie I suppose. Also nice is the History channel, but up here they play about 50% movies, and not very good ones at that.

      *sigh* Thank your lucky stars for the Internet, kids. Television really truly does suck these days, unless you find the 315th episode of Friends to be enlightening.
  • I wish I could find "The Mechanical Universe" I used to love that show as a kid.... I remember all the formulae moving around on the screen as they wor worked out. -That show taught me algebra, geometry and calculus through physics before I was in 5th grade.

    • Re:If Only... (Score:2, Informative)

      by kaotech ( 89247 )
      Here [learner.org] you go.
    • I agree. It is one of few examples I can think of that were "real" science on TV. But Scientific American? Didn't they already whore themselves out for some terrible pop science TV thingy? A quick google says yes - it was that 3rd grade pop science thing with Alan Alda. I think that disqualifies them as the standard bearer. There are enough channels now that a real science channel that carries enough content to take someone from the scientific ignorance that the school system produces to a general 4 yea
  • Hi I'm Carl Sagan, and throughout my life I've said my name millions and millions and millions and millions and.....

    Next Up: Carl Sagan speaks on grains of sand....

  • No, I wouldn't. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MagikSlinger ( 259969 ) on Friday October 17, 2003 @06:50PM (#7245010) Homepage Journal
    Wouldn't you love to sit in on some of those presentations rather than waiting to hear about one of them in a 30-second encapsulation on network TV?

    No, I wouldn't. Most of these presentations are duller than paint drying, and I've seen video of ones I was interested in. Also, Michael sounds like he wants it to be the Skeptics Network. I think the Skeptics movement are their own worst enemy. They sound as shrill as the people they're attacking.

    I would love real science on the Discovery channel and TLC (back when it used to do that occasionaly), but you know what needs to happen first? More content. More production. That costs money. Real money. Horizon by the BBC kicks Nova's ass most of the time, and when it doesn't, it's because Nova is actually showing a Horizon documentary with Peter Coyote narating instead.

    We need documentary makers who'll make interesting documentaries about math, physics and other hard sciences. I'm sick of the "animal/nature" specials that are nothing more than an hour of "Awww! Look at the *cute* animals!" Feh! At least Steve Irwin makes it interesting.

    If you want to do an animal show, do it like Sir David Attenburough and make it about the science. I want the details. I want the cold, rational view of things that teaches me things I didn't know. You can talk about the philosophical or subjective aspects of it too, but it's first about the science, then the human side. Example: Industrial Revelations [www.exn.ca] with Mark Williams for Discovery Networks Europe. All too often (like in Horizon/Nova's doc about Fermat's Last Equation), it's only about the human side.

    Balance, people! Is that so much to ask for?

    • Well to be fair, Nova is a coproduction of the BBC and WGBH, one has a lot more money...

      • Well to be fair, Nova is a coproduction of the BBC and WGBH, one has a lot more money...

        Yes, WGBH Boston, so you have to wonder what their excuse is.

        NOVA is not a co-production with the BBC. It's an all-American show that sometimes teams up with international TV producers to make shows. E.g., they've teamed up with just NHK a number of times and they often co-pro for specific shows with a German TV broadcaster as well as the BBC so that's why it seems like it's a co-pro. When the same show airs in Eng

  • they get some nutjob speaking in a bad australian accent saying some nonsence word constantly to grab ahold of deadly substances with his bare hand, thereby giving the audience a false sence of danger and excitement.

    It worked for Animal Planet.
  • I imagine it would take the form of the ghostly white snow of a dead channel within a few weeks of launching. Since my local cable carrier won't pick the channel up to begin with anyways, at least I won't have to mourn the loss.
  • They could start by doing it on public access on multiple areas, asking for donations (Paypal/Amazon sounds great to me) online to fund their first couple episodes. They can be non-profit getting individual pledges and educational sponsorships. Think PBS without the .gov subsidy and with all science content.

  • While We are making fun of John Edward.... (Score:3, Funny)

    by vtechpilot ( 468543 ) on Friday October 17, 2003 @06:55PM (#7245061)
    Recall the PVP Online [pvponline.com] fun when Scott Kurtz roasted him. Pick up the storyline here. [pvponline.com]

    • The thing that bothers me so much about the coverage that John Edwards gets is not so much that he's spouting bullshit. There are tons of people who do that. What upsets me is that he is preying on people who have suffered emotional losses and is preventing them from achieving a natural recovery. I'm flabergasted that no one has publically gastigated him for this.

      For those unfamiliar, Edwards claims to be a psychic who communicates with the dead. So people who have lost a loved one and are having troub

  • About the only things on TV that intereste me are documentaries: Nova, Nature, Nature of Things, Daily Planet etc. The rest is really not worth my time (episodes of any Star Trek I have not seen notwithstanding... =)

    I mostly get my science fix online, or though print.

    Michael Schermer (who wrote the article) also wrote one of my favorite books: "Why People Believe Wierd Things" it is second only to Carl Sagans "The Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark" (Which is mentioned in the article.) -
  • Um, there's a reason why it's called the Science Fiction channel.

    Just sit back and pretend to be entertained. Or switch over. Bah.

  • Entertainment Value (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kanan ( 527196 )
    A lot of brilliant minds do not give good lectures or teach well. I somehow doubt listening to a lecture by Stephen Hawking would hold the masses attention very well. This channel would be targeted at those who are interested in science, but those people also surely also want to be entertained. Discovery science, the last time I watched it a year ago or so had a good offering, although they needed fewer repeats and they could have benefited from the idea of having the occasional science lectures. I thin
    • What I find funny in all of this is that Cable companies want to throw up even MORE channels. But every content provider more or less is trying to grab EVERY eyeball instead of grabbing a few eyeballs all of the time.

      Let's think of it this way. How much does it honestly cost to run a Cable channel? Yes you have to produce content, but this is Science people. Ditch some glitz, and edit using a handicam and a Mac running Premier.

      Now with a ultra-low budget, go find some free suppliers of content. One area

    • I somehow doubt listening to a lecture by Stephen Hawking would hold the masses attention very well

      I've been to a Stephen Hawking lecture. It was fantastic. Most of the people had no science background, but everyone hung on his ever word. This after waiting for hours to get in, and running a gauntlet of creationist protestors. (That's right, they picketed a pure-science physicist in a wheelchair).

      Way funner than that shitty CSI show.
  • Not that I want to get in the way of Ann Druyan (seriously), but there are already a few channels that do this. They might not be included in your TV lineup, so contact your provider.

    The Research Channel [washington.edu], University of California [uctvonline.org], The University of Washington channel, HealthTV, University House [nau.edu], Educating Everyone [usdla.org].

    The Research Channel in particular has some great lectures, and is available for free on Galaxy 10 Ku band [lyngsat.com] with a 1 meter dish.

    I'd like more, though, and if Cosmos Studios gets behind it, perh

  • I think perhaps this [re-quest.net] would have been a better link for "fakers."
  • Christ, can you imagine the Slashdot effect a channel like that would have???
  • Yes, I'm sure the Sci-Fi channel is attempting to fake being a science channel...
  • Before they "dumbed down" TLC and the Discovery Channel they used to show hard core stuff like The Mechanical Universe, which was pretty much a video taping of the freshman physics course at Harvard with some extra stuff thrown in. THAT was educational.

  • In the UK, BBC2 ain't bad (Score:3, Informative)

    by arevos ( 659374 ) on Friday October 17, 2003 @07:07PM (#7245151) Homepage
    In the UK, the BBC has a lot of good science programs. BBC2 more really, because of the connections with the Open University, but there's also some other interesting things on. It's a long way from being a dedicated science channel, but it does a better job then any other channel I've seen, even the ones on Cable/Satellite.

    Science Shack [open2.net] is good, with Adam Hart-Davis and his enthusiam for odd and fun experiments. Time Commanders [totalwar.com] is something I should mention, even if that's more military history, but only because I enjoy strategy games, and the idea of letting contestants take one side of an famous battles is good. If only they'd do a head-to-head version too :). The Human Mind [bbc.co.uk] and other documentary series like that are interesting, and deal with a lot of biology stuff. The Sky at Night [bbc.co.uk] is the longest running program in the world, and is interesting if you're into astronomy. Then there's also Rough Science [open2.net], which is where a group of scientists have to complete tasks such as panning gold or building a generator whilst stuck out in the middle of nowhere with little resources. And Hollywood Science [open2.net] I like too.

    Now if only they'd take all of these and all the rest and stick them on one channel for convenience :)
  • So will this be pseudo science like is taught in most public and private educational institutions (where books are reviewed for politically correct content that varies throughout the nation), or will they eschew the potential for educational or tax dollars and focus on real science? There's money in the former, science in the latter.

    Discovery Channel showed that it was actually possible to have documentaries on stuff that wouldn't put people to sleep and History Channel usually doesn't botch things too bad
    • Amoung my many aquaintances are a few historians. All of them snicker when I mention I've seen something on the History Channel. The problem with HC is that TV does not handle differing viewpoints all that well. In one case outlined to me by professional historians, they guy who got most of that airtime in one presentation is considered a crackpot in the field. But he photographed well.

      Also look at their selection of subject matter. Their call letters might as well be WWII.

  • Geeze, congressional hearings on science? Political Debate? C-SPAN of science?!!

    NO, how about some REAL content. These idiots mentioning this channel make it sound crap because they just don't get it. Just because science doesn't interest them and C-SPAN doesn't interest them, does NOT mean the programming will be similar.

    Imagine lectures and programming on leading edge science topics. Educational programming with real meat on the bones. Demonstrations of the latest theories and experiments. Visits to int
  • John Edward: But I'm a psychic.
    Stan: No dude, you're a douche.
    John Edward: I'm not a douche! What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?
    Stan: Then you're a stupid douche
    John Edward: I think I've had of your bullying me! Get out of my house or I'll runs upstairs, lock myself in my panic room and call the police!
    Stan: I'm nine years old.
    John Edward: I'm not talking to your friend and I'm not a douche! [runs up the stairs and towards his room] You'd better get out of my house, 'cause I'm gonna call t
  • Every time I go back to Canada I am stunned at the difference in quality between the US Discovery Channel and the Canadian edition. While the US version seems to focus on UFOs, John Edwards, Junkyard wars and other hocus pocus, the Canadian version has real content, interviews and articles about real science.

    In particular the US version has NOTHING like the Daily Planet program. I don't know why it is that the Canadian version of Discovery Channel is SOOOOO much better.

    It's depressing that there is no mar
    • Most cable providers offer Discovery Science which is an offshoot of Discovery that focuses more on real science and less on pseudoscience. It's a really good channel that offers documentaries on everything from biology to medical science to astronomy.

      Just so you know that there is SOME real science on TV here. (Oh, and John Edwards is on the "sci-fi" channel, not Discovery)

  • Science Channels (Score:2, Informative)

    by webhat ( 558203 )
    I always considered the researchchannel [1] and uwtv [2] as good science channels. So they show
    mainly uni lectures, but as science only channel go that's a start. I've even seen a lecture on
    good OO practise.
    There are a number more such streams, including childrens channels. And what about the discovery
    channel, so it's not so indepth, but it has got the science slant.

    [1] http://www.researchchannel.org/webcast/asx/rtv-la n .asx
    http://www.researchchannel.org/webcast/asx/rtv-mod em.asx
    [2] http://www.uwtv.
    • Yup, I'm glad at least a few others know of those channels and the web sites with the video clips.
      DishNetwork carries both, along with I think one or two other university based channels. The Research Channel I think is Univerity of California's, UWTV is University of Washington. There may also be a Rutgers based channel.

      On top of that I also regularly watch NASA TV which frequently does educational/lecture type shows, and they seem to show almost any testimony (that's not classified secret) by the administ
  • Television isn't for teh dification of the general public, or the dissemination of knowledge an dunderstanding. Television is a magic happy box for keeping people vaguely entertained/enthralled by electromagnetic waves. Let me just say however, that I don't recall the Sci-Fi channel ever pretending to be a legitimate science netork, come on folks, they have the word Fiction in their name. It's like when they had that Blair Witch program and people thought it was about a true story, you know, because their s
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • The popular science magazines like Scientific American and The New Scientist have some faults, but I think they have the right idea as far as content is concerned. There are a lot of interesting topics in science to talk about without focusing on the latest genomic research. Scientific American, for example, published an article on the science of coffee a few months ago. Stuff like that can be very interesting to people and still be real science.

    The challenge comes when you need to take some of the more di
  • Could we get a real SciFi channel while we're at it? Pretty please?
  • Just out of curiosity, I actually watched a few episodes of this. I'm amazed at the stupidity of people who believe even for a second it could be real. Basically the routine goes like this,

    He gets this huge audience, then starts walking. Steps over to a certain area while spewing out some shit like "I'm being drawn to this area." Then for his amazing stunt to connect with someone beyond the grave, he says something like, "A prescence is telling me that someone in this area had a father who's name started
    • The rub with common sense is that it's not all the common, and it involves gestaltic thinking rather than sensation.
    • You should have seen the episode where Penn and Teller debunk these idiots.

      There is a whole pre-show that we don't see where they basically get the info out of the audiance. Not to mention the incredible editing that takes place to make it appear seemless.

      In the infamous words of P&T: It's *bullshit*! But, we knew that....
      • There is a whole pre-show that we don't see where they basically get the info out of the audiance.

        I'm surprised that's even necessary. The stuff is all so abstract it would probably apply to half the audience. Shit like "Someone in this area had a mother-in-law who's favorite color was red." Then someone speaks up and volunteers a whole bunch more info for him to use.

  • WTF? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by march ( 215947 ) on Friday October 17, 2003 @08:09PM (#7245542) Homepage
    Why would a "real science channel" be devoted to debunking fakers and disinformation?

    That is *not* real science. Get a clue.

    Now, a channel devoted to real science AND a channel devoted to debunking bad science. That would be cool.
  • Seriously, who do I have to kill for this network to get funding and put on the air.

  • I already have real science channels on Dish Network. They're called ResearchChannel [researchchannel.org] and UWTV [uwtv.org]. In fact: [researchchannel.org]

    For our many viewers on cable, direct broadcast satellite, and the Internet, ResearchChannel is the C-SPAN of scientific and medical research.

  • WTF, really, micheal used to be good at articles, now it seems like slashdot is his own personal rant page.

    i get to rant, but it doesnt get on the front page of slashdot.

  • DirecTV has the SCI channel already (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Saturday October 18, 2003 @01:41AM (#7246868)
    Its very informative, but lacks the flash and buzzwords that makes television successful. In other words its fairly boring. Digging up McLuhan's corpse [regent.edu] here but the medium is very much the message. Selling science on TV is a *tough* sell and you need various gimmicks to get a critical mass of people watching.

    Carl Sagan was a cult of personality of his own.

    Connections was amusing, smart, well narrated, and had lots of on-locale stuff.

    Right now the Science Channel comes off exactly like what they made us watch in high school when teachers didnt feel like teaching, only not as dumbed down.

    Television really isn't a good medium for science. Then again its not good for a lot of things, yet there are ways around this problem. Look at all the sexy women reading the telepromter on cable news. Or shows with "extreme" type advetising gimmicks. Hiring people with real charisma and giving them some creative control. etc.

    An issue that does bother me is that SCI-FI, PAX, PBS, etc have no problem playing these "Unexplained" shows, all of which give a lot of credit to creationism (right-wing bias in the media is quite real) and other credulous nonsense without a counterpart on some other channel attacking these shows. An offensive, in your face, science show consisting of people with some backbone could make for some excellent ratings. Divide that up with traditional science shows and it might work. Find the luminaries out there, let them speak in a format that's entertaining. I've read that Bucky Fuller was just a great speaker. Where are the Bucky Fullers of our age? There are a lot of "Carl Sagans" and "Bucky Fullers" out there. Find them and give them a job and watch the money roll in.

  • Ha ha ha. . . (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Saturday October 18, 2003 @06:34AM (#7247484)
    I can't quite tell how ironic Michael is being here, but it's an interesting post regardless of how one takes it.

    A lot of people have responded with, "Have you seen The Science Channel?" and "Hey, there's Discovery". Somebody else even claimed that the Canadian version of "Discovery" is superior to the U.S. version, which I would only agree with in that perhaps Canadians are better educated in general and thus need a smarter form of dis-info in order to be properly bullshitted, and Jay Ingram are so very full of shit.

    Here's the sad, ugly truth of the matter: Television is a tool of mind-control through societal behavior modification. It is incredibly effective in many basic ways. It is owned up and down by the kind of people and organizations who are aligned and well suited to this kind of work.

    You will NEVER get a generally available 'Science' television show which is un-biased, un-manipulative, and which honestly seeks to enlighten its viewers. NEVER. --Science in its current, publically accepted form, is founded upon a series of lies to begin with. There is simply no way the basic nature of television will change short of a massive paradigm shift where all the people in positions of power suddenly turn 'good'. This seems unlikely.

    With the exception of DVD's and such, I stopped watching television about a year ago. That is, I do not watch any of the 'live' commercial feed into which virtually everybody in the West is plugged. The results were fascinating, if not un-predictable. . .

    1. There was a period of withdraw pain, and a desire to watch television. This lasted for several months.

    2. Then, the strangest thing happened. Not only did the desire to watch television dry up and vanish, but I discovered that I now feel extremely ill at ease when I am visiting another person's house where they have a television playing. The hammering of advertising especially feels the most horrible and numbing. It's literally a job not to want to escape the room. My natural tolerance has vanished, and I feel amazed that other people can stand to be around a television. It's stunning. Like an ex-smoker being now repulsed by smoke. Very similar.

    3. Amazingly, all the extra time I thought I would be bored during, twiddling my thumbs, (and the first few months were like that), has now been easily absorbed by the rest of my day. I get SO much more stuff done now! Life has in a very real sense, been enriched.

    4. I once thought it was important to be tuned in to television so that I could share the common experience of everybody else in the West; to stay in touch with humanity. One of my biggest revelations is that, as it turns out, I now strongly recognize that I don't want to be part of that mass awareness. Quite simply, the collective 'awareness' of the television watching public is extraordinarily restrcited, dumb and numb. I feel like I am awake now, properly, for the first time in years, and I am disgusted to think that I was ever one of the sleepers sitting, staring into that queer, flickering light.

    What a science fiction idea! That a whole population subjects itself for hours to that creepy flickering light. Watching people watch television is fucking disturbing, and we all know it. It's like those Borg ports where the head is plugged into that flickering thing. Fucked up, and everybody knows it.


    What I find most upsetting is when I see little children innocently watching television without their parents warning them of what is being done to their developing minds. There is so little chance for people to escape, as the conditioning begins almost from birth. Only one in a thousand or so seem to manage to break away. Maybe even fewer.


    -FL

Slashdot Top Deals

Nobody said computers were going to be polite.

Close