Written by I attended a conference (which I rarely do these days) up in Manchester last month, and one of the keynote speakers was a very distinguished and highly-regarded Mancunian CEO from a trust based in the North West. He opened his talk by stating that he increasingly thought of himself at events such as this as “a 60 year-old grumpy uncle at a 21st birthday party”. What he then spoke about was his world-weariness and cynicism, but also his sense of mild disapproval with the direction of travel he witnesses in so many areas.
This is a sentiment that I can, at least sometimes, sympathise with and share. It only takes around 30 seconds of exposure to “Love Island” or similar on television for me to feel a little disconnected, and irritated. Far from being particularly “high brow” in my cultural leanings, I just think we can do better – and perhaps we should seek better for the young people in our lives too.
I’ve expressed the above not out of a need for catharsis or an attempt to judge, but as a way of framing something that I want to share in this month’s blog.
Almost five years ago, I featured in my blog the writings of Carl Sagan (“Pale Blue Dot” – July 2021), and I return to his work here. I stumbled across a classroom discussion between him and some American college students which, from the hair styles and the fashions, I would date at around the late 1980s. It was a film clip short enough for me to transcribe its contents here below:
“How much science and technology, for example, do we see in the mass media? Every newspaper in America has a daily astrology column. How many have even a weekly science column? Why is this?
How much science do you see on television? When somebody wins a Nobel Prize, do we ever get a coherent explanation of what he won it for? What was this discovery that was important enough to win a Nobel Prize? Well, the basic sense of television is that the American people are too stupid to understand. That it takes concentration, and therefore in the quest for small differential advantage in the competition between the networks, that it will be a means of losing ratings to spend time explaining what science is about.
Short term advantage for the network company – long term disaster for the country.”
(Carl Sagan calls out mainstream media)
Sagan made those comments when the United States, like the United Kingdom, had a comparatively modest number of national networks, all of which could expect millions of viewers to tune in and all of whom (unlike the UK) relied on advertising revenue to survive and prosper. He himself hosted the most popular science-based TV show in America (“Cosmos”, 1980) that brought astronomy and cosmology to the masses through stunning visuals at the cutting edge of what was possible at the time combined with Sagan’s man-in-the-street style of clear and engaging delivery. The original thirteen-episode series can still be streamed, and I would highly recommend it to anyone.
Today, the clamour for viewers’ attention is even more manic, with mainstream media competing with each other, with cable and internet channels and social media formats such as TikTok and Instagram for the time, and marketing potential, of a global audience. In such a world, is there still a place for the hour-long science show? In an age where composers of new music are advised that their introductory “hook” should be no more than five seconds long to avoid Spotify listeners skipping to the next track, is there still space in our attention for the next “Money for Nothing” (intro time: 2 minutes 4 seconds) or “Bat Out of Hell” (intro time: 1 minute 55 seconds)?
We do still see the occasional documentary make it big in the ratings. As national treasure Sir David Attenborough celebrated his 100th birthday last month, his work can still command millions of viewers in Britain and beyond. Programmes such as Life on Earth and Blue Planet remain popular, thanks to a combination of public broadcasting and the engagement and photogenic magic that worked also for Carl Sagan. However, even though broadcast at peak viewing times Planet Earth III had fewer viewers than I’m a Celebrity….
As I look to what our children and young people will be watching and listening to, I have the excitement of knowing that there are new discoveries to share with them via new media channels and with amazing new filming techniques (drone footage, microscope cameras etc.) tempered with a concern that the plethora of alternatives will turn their heads, their attention, and their wallets toward other, more easily consumable media product.
The removal of access to mobile phones in schools may help young people to embrace and concentrate upon the world immediately around them and, in so doing, should help kindle the spark of curiosity for our understanding world and our universe that is inherent in every child. Of course, beyond school we all can play our part in supporting our young people to navigate between the real and the deep fake, the substantial and the froth, the beneficial and the harmful.
Carl Sagan died in 1996. I’m sure he would have been astonished at the inventions, innovations and discoveries humanity has accomplished in the last thirty years. However, were he alive today, I’m not convinced that he would retract a single word he said to those American students back then.
Thanks, as always, for reading.
Mike.
You must be logged in to post a comment.