Comments on: Science on TV - Having Your Say

By: WIRED Science - Asymptotia

WIRED Science - Asymptotia — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 22:06:00 +0000

[...] I promised some interesting television news earlier, and here it is. Well, it is actually blogging news too. First let me step back a touch. Recall that some time back I mentioned that there were a number of new science shows vying for the nod from PBS to be their new primetime science show? Viewers could go in and vote on which show they preferred. Well, the show that won this was WIRED Science, the show I also told you more about here. I’m pleased about this since I thought it was actually the best of the bunch. [...]

By: I’ve Got Next - Asymptotia

I’ve Got Next - Asymptotia — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 04:31:51 +0000

[...] While we were shooting, and I was giving an answer (something about the origin of mass and how it was nothing to do with fast food) out of the corner of my eye I could see someone approaching with a very purposeful walk that was making a beeline for me, not deviating at all. Could they not see that we were filming, I thought? “Hi!” the smiling person said when in our midst, and we all turned and looked. Ah! The full-scale TV crew had arrived, with their bigger cameras, bigger equipment bags, bigger entourage, and…. a really high-wattage TV personality: Ziya Tong. She is one of the presenters and field operatives of the upcoming Wired Science TV show (which I will tell you more about, and you will recall me blogging about when it was in its pilot phase here and here), among several other shows. Seems that the other team was there to shoot some stuff for the TV show (it’ll be on PBS). The team I was with was primarily focused on the accompanying web resources for the show, you see. [...]

By: Clifford

Clifford — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 20:39:15 +0000

Thanks everyone! Keep the comments coming. I hope you guys are telling the PBS people these things too, over on their site. Links in the post. They need to know these opinions.

-cvj

By: spyder

spyder — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 19:41:38 +0000

I am with Supernova on this one. For a group that purports to represent what is happening in the forefront of science, and one that is connected to Wired, the hosts were not at all what i expected. I have watched Bay Area tech shows over the last couple of decades (before i moved to the northwest) and they were much more interactive and “fun” while still heavy on the science and technology. Maybe since Wired is an LA production they thought they needed to give it “pro” values.

There is a show on the asian television networks that focusses on new technologies and what is in the pipe heading our way. It is much more entertaining, informative, and fun. Science on TV needs to be fun, otherwise we could just watch the NASA channel for updates (and yes i watch that too, and enjoy it greatly).

By: nc

nc — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:23:48 +0000

Regards the three shows, the Wired Science pilot is a bit like BBC’s Tomorrow’s World (which I starred on for, about 3 seconds, in 1986 when I was 14). It’s just too 80s. I’m a nerd but this is a kind of patronising nerdiness (which is probably why Tomorrow’s World sank after bossy, teacher-type presenters were recruited near the end). The only people interested in the subject will know enough to not need the slow, simple delivery, and the outsiders watching may offended by being spoken down-to. It’s far too slow spaced, and sounds endlessly like chunks of an old encyclopedia being read out over stock footage with a few experts giving their views. It’s not exciting enough.

Science Investigators is even worse: Prof. Michio Kaku’s explanation of knuckleball problems in base ball is about the most most boring piece of physics. It makes string theory drivel seem exciting by comparison! The whole thing is too slow. There’s not enough information being delivered per second. The shots are all too long and boring. No interest, certainly no excitement or enthusiasm to watch more of this.

22nd Century is much better. It makes the other two look like amateur student productions. It’s professional, it has an exciting story, it grabs your attention. It doesn’t linger on stupid presenters making boring speeches. Although I’ve no personal interest in the subject, the programme quality makes itself worth watching.

By: Plato

Plato — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 06:09:46 +0000

I remember when you wrote Tales From The Industry, IX I got sniped a lot

This was interesting to me because the experiments somehow can transcend a lot of language. A person like me, ill prepared, and seemingly off the mark :), I indeed struggle to be clear and appreciate this “intuitiveness transferred.” I think, this is part of our evolution.

I like PBS because of the format and the way in which they have brought the subject of science that may seem obscure and abstract(the scientists who discuss amongst themselves), down to a level that is quite inviting to the general public.

So good work, and a deserved recognition to bringing the simple experiments a greater vitality and message to the public.

On another note.

Helioseismolgy and WMAP. Related? A “imaging speculation of the bird Phoenix,” about the sun spitting/oscillating/hatching out the neutrinos in a particle showers and kascading

By: Supernova

Supernova — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 05:20:31 +0000

I just caught a bit of “Wired Science” and was surprised at how staid it was. The hosts were all dressed very conservatively in dark colors and speaking in very level, measured, newscasterlike tones. None of this is bad, per se, but I guess I was expecting something a little more flashy and fun. If I weren’t already interested in science, I’m not sure I would have wanted to keep watching. I really want to like this show, but I think it could use some more energy.