Commercials, Controversy and Core Values

*click words in large blue font to access external links*

 

"UNTIL the Great Exposition closed its doors in November, Adams haunted it, aching to absorb knowledge, and helpless to find it. He would have liked to know how much of it could have been grasped by the best-informed man in the world...Then [Langley] showed his scholar the great hall of dynamos, and explained how little he knew about electricity or force of any kind, even of his own special sun...to Adams the dynamo became a symbol of infinity. As he grew accustomed to the great gallery of machines, he began to feel the forty-foot dynamos as a moral force, much as the early Christians felt the Cross."--The Education of Henry Adams, 1918

Humans have been perplexed by technology and science for centuries. In many cultures, faith was used as a way to explain things that were difficult, or seemingly impossible to understand. The above is an excerpt from Henry Adams' personal account of the Great Exposition in 1900. He is expressing his fascination with the "dynamo," or electric generator (to avoid confusion I should mention that he writes in the third person!). He finds himself in awe of an invention so complex that he cannot grasp the science behind it. Yet, its mystery is part of its awe. The dynamo is so mysterious to Adams that he compares its effect on him to the ability of religious objects, such as the cross, to evoke wonder. Ultimately,  Adams concludes that that accepting the science behind the great machine is simply a matter of "faith."

On Tuesday we got into a small in-class debate about the best way to generate interest in science news. Should we market science in a way that skims the surface, but provides tips on how people can improve the environment, educate themselves, and become better citizens? Or should we find an entertaining way to present science so that citizens want to learn about it without sacrificing in-depth knowledge?

As Americans, we live in a capitalist society, where incentive is the motivation behind most decisions. Like Matthew Nisbet said in class, Americans won't want to learn about climate change without an immediate, compelling reason. Advertisers are well aware of this phenomenon, and have strategically manipulated science issues to engage consumers.

Here is a great example from  my Stonyfield yogurt container:

 

Front side of the lid: "A climate change movie that doesn't even care if you believe in climate change. Carbon Nation: gives all sorts of good reasons to reduce carbon emissions. Win a DVD"

The back side the lid: "Reducing carbon emissions isn't just for us environmentalists anymore. Carbon Nation is an entertaining movie that shows how even climate skeptics are reducing carbon emissions to keep the air and water clean and produce jobs, profits, and greater economic strength and national security."

Stonyfield's marketing re frames the issue of climate change. Just as Nisbet explained in class, they are marketing global warming in terms of jobs, profits, clean water, and a stronger economy, issues that are currently of immediate national importance. The yogurt company is selling science by gearing their marketing toward "something the public already values or prioritizes, conveying personal relevance" (Nisbet). Stonyfield understands our capitalist society, and is giving us a strong incentive to care about this issue.

This video is an ad for an Olay cosmetic product. Although it does not pertain to a certain issue, it is an illustration of how advertisers are exploiting the widespread lack of knowledge about chemistry to sell a product. They describe utilizing a concentration of "amino peptide b3 complex" to firm and hydrate the skin. They could have just said protein. Instead, the ad is specifically designed to evoke the same sense of awe from the seemingly "magical" product as Henry Adams felt from the dynamo. After watching, we want to purchase it, not because we understand the science, but because we have "faith" in its ability to work.

What a contradiction! For "faith" is exactly what makes science issues like global warming, evolution, and stem cell research so unnecessarily controversial. I grew up in an extremely conservative area in Western Maryland, where my 10th grade science teacher skipped the chapter on evolution in our biology textbook. She readily admitted being fearful of criticism from the large and vocal minority of students (and their parents) who adhered to a literal reading of the biblical story of creation. The science of evolution causes such a religious uproar because it threatens many Americans' core religious values. The 46% of Americans who reject evolution and think the earth is less than 6,000 years old do not want to accept this science because they think it challenges their fundamental world view, and for them, that's scary. In Nisbet's words, when people get scared they respond in one of two ways: denial or submission.

I suppose this is why new marketing on climate change takes the approach that Stonyfield does. Instead of "scaring us into caring" or threatening long-held beliefs, they tell us its fine if we don't believe in climate change, and give us tips on how to improve our individual lives and national economy. So is this type of science education okay? Can we really skirt around the issues to manipulate people into half-halfheartedly participating? The answer might be more complex than a simple yes or no. Nisbet says that "if the public feels like they are simply being marketed to, this perception is likely to only reinforce existing polarization and perceptual gridlock." He gives the great example of the controversy which resulted from EcoAmerica's attempt to "re-brand" the debate over global warming as the "environment."

However, public communication about science through advertising could be the first step to grabbing the public's attention. For example, if Stonyfield's purchasers followed up and won the DVD advertised on their yogurts, they might develop an interest in reducing carbon emissions. Even if they simply read about the topic or googled "Carbon Emissions," the company would have heightened awareness through its advertising campaign.

But ultimately, this can only be a first step. It is not enough to tell people what actions to take and what products to buy and expect them to trust in the science behind that marketing. This approach puts scientists on the same plane as the closed-minded skeptics whose "faith" they often criticize. They are simply asking the public to have a different kind of "faith" in their research, technology, and theories.

As the public, we deserve more for ourselves, our community, and our future generations. The only way that science progresses is through innovation. We cannot be content in our ignorance, or even submit to it like Adams. We must take on the mental challenge to understand science so that we can make informed decisions.

In order to do this, we must utilize creative resources available to us as well as develop new, and better resources. Nisbet's solutions are a great place to start. Although we are in difficult economic times, we cannot continue to cut funding for programs like NPR when we have spent 1.2 trillion dollars on war since 2001. Instead, we need to increase funding for public radio and television, specifically in the area of science. We also need to make science accessible to groups beyond the elite, engaging the broader public in meaningful dialogue about about the issues. Finally, we must ensure that our schools have a strong science curriculum. Science news can be entertaining, but it must delve into substantive issues. Darlene Cavalier is a leading expert on this strategy.. She realized that "sexy science would sell" and found a way to connect scantily dressed cheerleaders with science! NASA has also created an interactive video game for children (much like the idea I had in my second blog) to engage kids with science. However, it is most important to connect science to people's values in meaningful ways. We can show citizens that it is possible to reconcile religious beliefs with scientific knowledge through face-to-face discussions throughout the community--even in churches!

In my opinion, the most effective way to promote science education is through the development of a strong partnership among scientists, journalists, and advertisers. We must stop using science as an exploitative tool that we manipulate to get consumers to buy our products, or follow our messages. A joint relationship among scientists, journalists and advertisers would foster the creation of sources that inform the public in a straightforward way without sacrificing valuable information. If the public feels defeated and confused by science, they will simply disengage. I believe that the tripartite relationship between these sectors would result in better information, and lead to a greater public incentive to actively engage with science. Furthermore, positive public response to interesting science news would provide scientists, advertisers and journalists with an incentive to continue their profitable partnership. And who knows? What might start as a strategic economic approach could very well lead to the integration of science and technology into the core values of American citizens.

You are Bushra

This is a picture of you. Your name is Bushra, and you are a 17 year-old Syrian girl hunted by your own family. Amir, a member of the Alawite minority in Syria is the love of your life. As a Sunni Muslim, you know there is a slim chance that your family will approve of your relationship. In a desperate effort to pursue his love for you, Amir begs your father for your hand in marriage. Your family  not only coldly rejects his proposal, but orders you to marry your cousin. To you, a life of imprisonment to a cruel relative is equivalent to death. You run.

Bushra seems like an exotic character from a novel or movie. But her story represents the common plight of Syrian women--200 of whom are murdered every year by family members in "honor killings." Bushra's travails and the tragedy of honor killings were published in BBC News. So why haven't Americans heard more about his story? Because Bushra doesn't sell...Snooki sells. It is imperative (and in my opinion a civic obligation) to take more of an active interest in international political events.

As we read in the Pew Research Center Report, 37% of Americans are active participants in the news through contributing to it, commenting on it, and sharing links with one another. News is becoming a social experience, especially for people under the age of 30. In fact, 22% of people aged 18-32 rely on networks for their news, and encounter their news through "serendipitous consumption." In other words, they happen upon it.  But I share the same views of our speaker David Johnson--international news about human rights violations, the desperately poor, foreign wars, and other global issues are too important to be left to serendipitous discovery.

So how can we control what news our generation seeks out? How can we provoke thinking past domestic borders? How can we expand the "social experience" beyond local and national communities? How can we challenge common perceptions? How can we, through participatory journalism, become better international citizens? With the rapidly increasing rate of globalization and interconnectedness, we must begin to seriously contemplate answers to these questions.

I propose three innovative solutions to the questions addressed above. The first solution brings me to why "you are Bushra." People read novels because they want to vicariously live adventurous lives through the main characters. They play video games so that they can be actively involved in an "adventure." However, I have never seen a true combination of the novel and the video game. The novel is missing the visually intense experience, and the video game is devoid of the developed main character.

I believe that the combination of the video game and novel experience provides a perfect opportunity to place people in someone else's shoes. This type of educative, interactive journalism would take the participatory news experience to another social dimension. This idea has parallels to David Johnson's discussion of creating programs in which people learn through "play." He gave the example of people learning about agricultural subsidies while playing Farmville.

My version would be more extensive, however, because it would allow people to choose a profile (gender, age, location, religion, socio-economic status, etc.). The game would be programmed to enable the players to lead the current virtual life of their personal profile. For example, by choosing to be Bushra, each day you played the game you would be encountered with issues that a person like Bushra would actually face in Syria. You might sign a petition against honor killings, engage in protests, or flee from violence into Turkey. In whatever role you chose to play, you would face real current obstacles. You would have to exercise judgment, engage in active debate, and make many sacrifices. The program could be updated constantly to fit current events. I believe this type of technology could be revolutionary, as it would combine entertainment with substantive issues to forge a closer and more understanding global community.

I recognize that this type of virtual experience could be controversial. It would have to provide safeguards against excessive violence such as murders, rapes, and torture. While the program could notify participants if violent acts occurred in their virtual experience, as this is a very real possibility, I would be against the program being used for perverse or distorted purposes.

Johnson's reference to the importance of video journalism, as well as the Zayyan and Carter article sparked the idea for my second proposal for engaging young people in international news. The Zayyan article referred to the way in which bloggers in the Occupied Palestinian Territories unveiled real experiences and truths that contradicted much of what was reported in the mainstream media. It discussed how these Palestinian journalists often wrote in English rather than Arabic in an attempt to make their plea for human rights heard. This story reminded me of a National Geographic documentary I watched about Guantanamo Bay. Prisoners began desperately shouting in English as the cameras entered the cell corridor. They begged the news reporters to have their rights recognized, denounced the unjust American system, and declared that they were only being treated humanely by guards because news crews were present. This episode caused me to reflect more deeply upon this controversial human rights issue. As a result, I became incensed with my government's policies and identifed more closely with the Guantanamo captives.

I think that provocative documentaries such as this one should be shown in classrooms across the United States. The documentary is a powerful learning tool for both national and international politics. Johnson described boring articles about the economy as so dry that one would rather "hang upside down by his toenails and read War and Peace." If students were shown the documentary Inside Job, however, they would both understand the technical details of the economic crisis and the corruption that was a prerequisite to the 2008 crash. This is only the first step, however. After watching the documentaries, the students would be required to either write letters to their Congressmen about their beliefs and observations, or blog (like this class!). This way, students would be actively engaging in insightful thinking about the news, and developing exposure to information broader than CNN and Fox. And, as Johnson said, regaining journalism must be a grassroots effort--writing to our Congressmen about pertinent issues is one of the most powerful checks we have on government policy.

My last proposal is the simplest, and it falls in the hands of parents, teachers and mentors. Although the PewCenter research focuses mostly on people aged 18 and older, I think that education about international politics and technological interconnectedness must start at a much younger age. Children as young as elementary school should develop long distance friendships with at least one student in another part of the world. This would be akin to a "pen pal," except the children could utilize skype, facebook, e-mail and chat to develop their relationships. Such a connection would remind citizens everywhere that they live in three distinct spheres--the local, national, and international. Often the importance of the last sphere is greatly minimized, and such a relationship would instill values of global citizenship from a young age. Then, as children grew into adults, they might be more motivated to independently seek out relevant international news, as well as have a better understanding of social mediums. 

Technology ultimately presents us with an interesting paradox in its relation to journalism. Although information sources are more accessible today, our generation has become so obsessed with the soundbite and social networking that we are missing substantial international news. The solution is not to give up, assume that only "Snooki sells," and put pop culture trash in well-respected news sources.

The solution is to make news more creative and interesting. People watch political comedians because they are entertaining, but they are also imparting information about current events. Why shouldn't all news sources have this approach?

Despite the fact that technology and the information it delivers may be overwhelming, technology certainly gives us the opportunity to endlessly innovate. So my solution? Let's tame the beast of technology, and reclaim substantive journalism for our generation.

Technophilia vs. Technophobia

After class on Tuesday, it seemed like the topic of technology was following me around all week! I have an internship with Maryland Senator Ben Cardin, and sometimes we go to briefings on various current topics, ranging from fashion to defense. On Thursday, I had the opportunity to attend a briefing led by Herb Lin of the National Academies. Lin's lecture explored the fact that as the world grows more interconnected, cyberattack poses an increasingly ominous threat to every nation. While a cyberattack may not cause actual physical harm (which many believe is the definition of the use of force), it can be used to severely harm the economy and people's livelihoods. However, the fact that cybercrime represents such a potential threat to economies, jobs, national security, and personal well being only serves as proof that access to technology has truly become a vital commodity. Everyone possess it or wants to possess it.

The United Nations recently released a statement that Internet blackouts are a violation of human rights. Their premise? That "by enabling individuals to exchange information and ideas instantaneously and inexpensively across national borders, the Internet allows access to information and knowledge that was previously unattainable. This, in turn, contributes to the discovery of the truth and progress of society as a whole." The United Nations claims that access to the Internet is a human right equally as important as access to food!

On Friday, I had the opportunity to hear Ralph Nader speak at an Intern Lecture series. He mostly discussed how our generation will be the first to face challenges such as "the outsourcing of white collar jobs" due to the world's transparent boundaries. However, he also said something that really resonated with me and referenced, almost directly, our class discussion on Tuesday. He emphasized that although we may face challenges, we can utilize innovative new technology to "connect our classrooms to our communities." I couldn't believe that right after we had discussed this topic in class, Nader was echoing the same ideas about impacting people with technology through civic involvement rather than simply learning from books. When asked, he even said that this would be his platform if he were ever to run for presidential office again.

It is obvious that the world is increasingly interconnected. The class readings from the week emphasized the fact that technology allows people to multitask, work longer hours, and develop better relationships through more frequent contact. Despite these benefits, we must always recognize the downsides of technology. Whether a person runs his car into a ditch from focusing on a text message rather than the road or nation suffers economically from a cyber attack, the dangers of technological advancement loom over us in our every day lives. But both the dangers and the benefits send the same resounding message: technology is vital to everyday life.

So you decide...technophile or technophobe?