TV producer vows to promise 'em Bigfoot, give 'em science
Bill Lattanzi is a freelance writer and producer of science and factual television. His work includes shows for Discovery, History, TLC, Nova, and American Experience.
When Lattanzi produces a show, he understands the value of educating viewers by building a bridge and a story that connects viewers with scientists. "As one of my Nova mentors told once told me, “Promise ‘em Bigfoot and give ‘em science.” It’s not a bad formula. Our job is to build a bridge to our viewers: folks who are smart, curious, but not necessarily educated in the same way we are. They come to us for the story, but we’ve got to meet them where they live," he wrote.
It's an interesting view of how a producer presents certain shows to viewers.
We can hope that producers of Finding Bigfoot are integrating this same idea into their show by having a scientist like Ranae Holland on the team.
Read the article below:
Promise ‘em Bigfoot, give ‘em science
By Bill Lattanzi
Posted: November 15, 2011
Like fellow PLoS blogger Seth Mnookin, I’m spending a year at MIT, in my case as a Knight Fellow in Science Journalism. Unlike Seth, I work in the craven world of cable television, making science shows on everything from the intricacies of evolution (see below) to what we in the biz call weather porn, which is the technical term for attention-grabbing specials on earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes and other potential mega-disasters. I’ve also put in time at the venerable Nova series, so I come by my take on things through varied experience.
During the three months I’ve spent as a Knight Fellow, I’ve heard many scientists speak frankly about their mistrust of the media. (One of the pithier summaries I’ve heard: “I hate science journalists.”) I’m not unsympathetic: I’ve seen scientific studies get twisted, sensationalized and scare-mongered by the media. But, to echo a debate going on in the #SciWriteLabs series, scientists need to realize that they’re in a different business from their journalistic brethren. I’m reminded of the punch line to the old Jackie Mason joke about actor-turned-President Ronald Reagan: “People criticize, but you can’t blame him. It’s not his field.” Scientists want their work represented as science–but journalists’ jobs are to communicate with the public, and the main tool they have at their disposal is the story.
Science, on the other hand, is less concerned with narrative than results. Scientists speak to other scientists through their work. Reputations are based on careful accumulation of facts, and a professional reluctance to speculate. This communicates within the community well–but not so well to the world at large.
Out here among the populace, where, as the Jimmy Stewart character says in It’s a Wonderful Life, people “do most of the working and paying and living and dying,” we communicate in the language of story. Stuart Brown, who studies play, puts it this way in his TED talk: “the basic unit of human intelligibility is the story.” Stories need beginnings, middles, and endings. They need tension and drama and resolution. All of which are anathema to any particular bit of science. Science only proceeds as a story in the big historical sweep of things. Individual scientists are like ants (or Borgs): The collective is all.
So how can we bridge this divide? As one of my Nova mentors told once told me, “Promise ‘em Bigfoot and give ‘em science.” It’s not a bad formula. Our job is to build a bridge to our viewers: folks who are smart, curious, but not necessarily educated in the same way we are. They come to us for the story, but we’ve got to meet them where they live. So if we get them into the carnival tent with a promise of a “mega-disaster,” once they’re there, in between the flying pieces of metal, we may be able to persuade them that, say, climate change is real, and there are still some things we can do about it. And wouldn’t that be a good thing?
By Bill Lattanzi
Posted: November 15, 2011
Like fellow PLoS blogger Seth Mnookin, I’m spending a year at MIT, in my case as a Knight Fellow in Science Journalism. Unlike Seth, I work in the craven world of cable television, making science shows on everything from the intricacies of evolution (see below) to what we in the biz call weather porn, which is the technical term for attention-grabbing specials on earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanoes and other potential mega-disasters. I’ve also put in time at the venerable Nova series, so I come by my take on things through varied experience.
During the three months I’ve spent as a Knight Fellow, I’ve heard many scientists speak frankly about their mistrust of the media. (One of the pithier summaries I’ve heard: “I hate science journalists.”) I’m not unsympathetic: I’ve seen scientific studies get twisted, sensationalized and scare-mongered by the media. But, to echo a debate going on in the #SciWriteLabs series, scientists need to realize that they’re in a different business from their journalistic brethren. I’m reminded of the punch line to the old Jackie Mason joke about actor-turned-President Ronald Reagan: “People criticize, but you can’t blame him. It’s not his field.” Scientists want their work represented as science–but journalists’ jobs are to communicate with the public, and the main tool they have at their disposal is the story.
Science, on the other hand, is less concerned with narrative than results. Scientists speak to other scientists through their work. Reputations are based on careful accumulation of facts, and a professional reluctance to speculate. This communicates within the community well–but not so well to the world at large.
Out here among the populace, where, as the Jimmy Stewart character says in It’s a Wonderful Life, people “do most of the working and paying and living and dying,” we communicate in the language of story. Stuart Brown, who studies play, puts it this way in his TED talk: “the basic unit of human intelligibility is the story.” Stories need beginnings, middles, and endings. They need tension and drama and resolution. All of which are anathema to any particular bit of science. Science only proceeds as a story in the big historical sweep of things. Individual scientists are like ants (or Borgs): The collective is all.
So how can we bridge this divide? As one of my Nova mentors told once told me, “Promise ‘em Bigfoot and give ‘em science.” It’s not a bad formula. Our job is to build a bridge to our viewers: folks who are smart, curious, but not necessarily educated in the same way we are. They come to us for the story, but we’ve got to meet them where they live. So if we get them into the carnival tent with a promise of a “mega-disaster,” once they’re there, in between the flying pieces of metal, we may be able to persuade them that, say, climate change is real, and there are still some things we can do about it. And wouldn’t that be a good thing?
[via blogs.plos.org]
Sure, it's time. But, I have more doubts about that delivery than a DNA study!
ReplyDeleteI find many of the types of shows like Finding Bigfoot,Ghost Hunters,Paranormal State etc. are all formulated the same way.
ReplyDeleteThe actors,subject and topic are different,that's it.
So it isn't that science?..T.V. science that is.
I really wish T.V. producers and creators would think outside the box and truly make a program educational AND entertaining.
I really dislike the "what was that noise?"-insert commercial break-,replay "what was that noise?" as everyone looks on in amazement,only to find out it was the cat.
Let's get original...please.
I totally agree. I'm sick of being treated like I'm an idiot by Finding Bigfoot. If they would treat the show like a documentry you would find on Nat Geo or Oasis, (dicovery has great docus to, but they also have finding bigfoot) I think they would find greater viewership and respect amomng peers and science. I watch it because its the only bigfoot show that comes on, and usually, I PVR it so I can skip all the crap.
ReplyDeletePaul
they do suck
ReplyDeleteHow about a new show that's centered on various ideas for capturing a bigfoot? If successful, they can then provide science with the only evidence that science will accept.
ReplyDelete@last anonymous
ReplyDeleteThat's a great idea!
For finding bigfoot, take this hypothetical situation. Instead of spending all their time and money traveling around and trying to film bigfoot in 3 days in various locations, why not go to a place, one place, like golden ears provincial park, or bluff creek (areas that are known to have bigfoot) and stay in that same spot for 2 months. They could use camera traps, unmanned aircraft with thermals, rope snares, (j/k, but maybe would work, probably not harm them, just leave them hanging upside down for a while) they could try and become a bigfoot in their own habitat. Live like them, understand them, understand what they need and do to survive.
If they are out there,(bigfoot) they would find them and film them.
They might not get 11 episodes of bigfoot sitcom, but they might get the greatest documentry of all time.
I sometimes wonder how much people know. How much money people are going to try and make off of this legend before the truth comes out? Is this going to drag on for years? Are we going to have to deal with finding bigfoot until they have made enough money. Why does BFRO buy all these footages and photos and lock them in a vault? Why do they have the skookum cast locked up. Sometimes I wonder what the motives are.
Paul
Ranae Holland is the only credible person on Finding Bigfoot.
ReplyDeleteShe must fight off the urge to roll her eyes every time one of her colleagues identifies a broken tree limb as the definite work of Sasquatch.
Cliff's OK too I guess and I think he's likely in the middle trying to keep the peace.
Yes Paul, I agree. Staying in one spot for awhile and attempting to find a sasquatch that way seems to be a far more likely way to have success with finding a sasquatch than driving into a spot for a few days and going through the same routine ("there's a squatch in these woods"). These TV shows are obviously produced first and foremost for the entertainment value. They capitalize on people's interest in the unknown. The TV bigfoot hunters are entertainers. Spending weeks in one location in a slow, methodical search doesn't have the same ability to entertain on TV.
ReplyDelete