Science Channel Refuses To Dumb Down Science Any Further

[bascule]

From our friends at The Onion:

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/science_channel_refuses_to_dumb

 

"At this point, having the word 'how' in a show's title is about as close to scientific investigation as we get," Myers said. "In fact, I don't even know how we can justify airing a show like Mantracker at all. A cowboy hunts contestants down using his trailing skills? I guess you could say it makes the audience use 'observation' by watching what happens on screen."

 

"Observation is a part of science, right?" Myers added.

[Mr Skeptic]

Ha ha, that's hilarious.

[the tree]

If only.

[Mokele]

Oh my god, that's *PERFECT*

[Mr Skeptic]

If only.

 

Well it does seem they recently decided to replace a world-renowned naturalist's narration with the same thing read by Oprah.

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/columnists/yes-shes-queen-of-all-media-but-to-discovery-shes-life-itself-82678662.html

[Sisyphus]

Are ghosts responsible for the Bermuda Triangle? Did the Bible Code predict that Hitler is actually an alien? Find out tonight, on the totally legitimate History Channel!

[Mokele]

The history channel now has a show by Larry the Cable Guy

[Mr Skeptic]

The history channel now has a show by Larry the Cable Guy

 

Appropriately called "Only in America".

[Severian]

I am afraid that article was a little too close to the truth to be funny.

[CaptainPanic]

I am afraid that article was a little too close to the truth to be funny.

 

LOL,

Until the use of some foul words, I didn't notice that this was not the truth. I thought they were just quoting an actual employee who was talking off the record (and therefore honest).

 

This is what made me realize I was reading sarcasm: "Officials also noted that the cable channel greatly values the 18- to 45-year-old demographic of louts, clods, and empty-headed dumb ****s."

 

It's surprising that the BBC and some of the non-commercial Dutch channels have by far the best documentaries. It seems that advertisements must go hand in hand with stupidity.

[the tree]

Although really, I'm not completely opposed to a show called Really Big Things: I quite like actual show MegaStructures although that's because the human interest side sort of overrides the science and engineering parts - it's nice to be reminded that it takes people to build those 'Really Big' things.

[Syntho-sis]

Science Channel, History Channel, and Discovery Channel have really let themselves slide.

 

It's just a reflection of the American Educational system imo.

[CharonY]

Apparently they found out what the news channels knew for a while already. Narratives are more interesting to people than facts.

[CaptainPanic]

Apparently they found out what the news channels knew for a while already. Narratives are more interesting to people than facts.

 

It depends how you present them. I agree that the narrator makes a huge difference. But the narrator can include loads of facts. You just shouldn't fire them at the audience like gunfire.

 

From my lectures at university, I conclude that you can definitely teach complicated topics in a very entertaining and interesting way. (And you can completely screw it up too).

 

Watch for example a BBC nature documentary... really wonderful and very interesting. Sir David Attenborough made absolutely stunning documentaries which are full of information.

 

The big difference is: those are hard to make. It's much, (MUCH!!) cheaper to place a film crew on a construction site than to try to film an endangered well-camouflaged bird in the rain forest.

 

I'm afraid it's money. 80% of the "science" shows are just film crews on construction sites or workshops, or at least just filming ordinary engineers doing their work (including all the social stuff and fights). They make no costs at all, except for the film crew.

[Syntho-sis]

Yea but they suck!

 

It's essentially just reality television under the mask of "popular science."

[VedekPako]

I used to love the science and history channels, but they have shows that are just plain uninteresting. What does a Pawn Shop have to do with history?

[Syntho-sis]

Now I will admit that Pawn Stars is kinda cool...Mostly just for the vintage guitars you occasionally see on there, but I don't think it should be classified as 'history.'

[ponderer]

From our friends at The Onion:

 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/science_channel_refuses_to_dumb

 

"At this point, having the word 'how' in a show's title is about as close to scientific investigation as we get," Myers said. "In fact, I don't even know how we can justify airing a show like Mantracker at all. A cowboy hunts contestants down using his trailing skills? I guess you could say it makes the audience use 'observation' by watching what happens on screen."

 

"Observation is a part of science, right?" Myers added.

 

It is sad that such a ubiqutous and attended medium should be reduced to appealing to the lowest common denominator, instead of attempting to raise the bar.

[Tau Meson]

What could possibly be so bad about the History Channel, Science Channel, etc. Before they used to have such boring and educational shows like Cosmos, and now they have such interesting programs like Barbecue Tech, Dirty Jobs, and the History of Moonshine!

 

 

Oh yeah, did I mention Two Weeks in Hell? All they do is talk about how people train in the military.

 

Who wants to guess at what else they could possibly think of? Next time on Discover Health, we are going to explore the physics of Lord of the Rings. And then on 2 p.m., on the History Channel, the first episode of Food Fight! will premier.

Edited February 15, 2010 by Tau Meson

[jayhawker]

And then on 2 p.m., on the History Channel, the first episode of Food Fight! will premier.

 

http://www.travelchannel.com/TV_Shows/Food_Wars

 

Its gonna be great!