The hallmark of great science journalism has always been lively translations of science’s complex niche ideas into a faithful vernacular. Of course the inherent challenge for science writers is finding a way to balance the caveats and nuance in scientific arguments with the generalizations necessary for public consumption.
There has been a fair amount commentary about the challenges of science journalism on various Science Blogs [here and here, to name two]. This is a necessary debate that begs to ask, “is good science writing possible?” As a casual but energetic consumer of science related media, I readily acknowledge the shortcomings of bad science writing in print and broadcast news (not to mention the harm it does to relations between scientists and the public). That being said, I believe there are a couple public radio solutions that do justice to the cause of educating the public on science.
This past Sunday, on Boing Boing, Doctorow posted about a Canadian radio show called Quirks and Quarks; particularly, he wrote about a recent episode in which one of the program’s producers sought to answer the question ‘What Came Before the Big Bang?‘ by exploring contemporary string theory. Doctorow observed that the high production value and ‘great, witty edits’ helped make these abstract ideas accessible.
Q&Q’s production techniques are very similar to those used at WNYC’s Radio Lab. Both shows rely heavily on diegetic field recordings, interviews with multiple experts, repetition of facts, and narrators that are constantly asking rhetorical questions. While my description may make these shows out to be mildly patronizing, I cannot emphasize how successful these narrative tools are for breaking down complex scientific ideas so that the average audience can follow along.
Good examples from Q&Q include the aforementioned ‘What Came Before of the Big Bang?’ and ‘What Makes Humans Unique?‘ and these from Radio Lab: Musical Language, Space, and Morality.