It has become incredibly difficult for me to trust mass media, or, rather, it has become easy for me to mentally flag mass media articles within which I perceive methods of dishonesty and coercion and motives of division and harm.
The article that you have linked, Patrick, titled, The chronic growing pains of communicating science online, authored by Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele, published on science.org, and sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, seems to be to be a particularly pernicious example of the kind of article that I would mentally flag.
I am aware that I have levied a harsh evaluation on this article - that is, that I have implied that the article, and perhaps even its authors and its sponsors should not be trusted, unless one wishes division and harm in their own life or in the lives of others. This is the evaluation I am making, but I offer this as my opinion only.
The overall impression I have of the article, specifically, is that the article is designed to appear as if it is championing honest and compassionate discourse and free dialogue, especially as regards scientific information, yet I perceive that the real goal of the article is to regroup or reinforce institutional power over public opinion and thereby persuade the public to act on the whims of an elite minority. ...
So, again, the article does begin by presenting this laudable goal. I am even willing to believe that the article's authors and sponsors believe in and are genuinely invested in this goal. However, I perceive that either the envisioned manifestation of this goal--the metrics of success, let's say--has been distorted, or the methods of reaching the goal have been distorted, or both. ...
That is, I don't read this passage as saying, "the scientific community could better understand and connect with an underserved audience."
I read the passage as saying, "Our control over the flow over information has failed to persuade or silence dissident opinions. We must reorganize our resources and efforts to convert or dissolve these three highest-risk groups."
The article that you have linked, Patrick, titled, The chronic growing pains of communicating science online, authored by Dominique Brossard and Dietram A. Scheufele, published on science.org, and sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, seems to be to be a particularly pernicious example of the kind of article that I would mentally flag.
I am aware that I have levied a harsh evaluation on this article - that is, that I have implied that the article, and perhaps even its authors and its sponsors should not be trusted, unless one wishes division and harm in their own life or in the lives of others. This is the evaluation I am making, but I offer this as my opinion only.
The overall impression I have of the article, specifically, is that the article is designed to appear as if it is championing honest and compassionate discourse and free dialogue, especially as regards scientific information, yet I perceive that the real goal of the article is to regroup or reinforce institutional power over public opinion and thereby persuade the public to act on the whims of an elite minority. ...
Quote:Many scientists-turned-communicators continue to see online communication environments mostly as tools for resolving information asymmetries between experts and lay audiences. As a result, they blog, tweet, and post podcasts and videos to promote public understanding and excitement about science.This is certainly, on the surface of it, a benevolent goal. After all, could we not say that this is an underlying goal of L/L Research, too? The Confederation speakers remain humble, presenting themselves as siblings or friends who are simply a little more experienced rather than as central authorities. However, certainly they do have this experience, they do have valuable information to offer, and they offer it so that we can better understand our cosmic situation, better understand ourselves and each other, and thereby make an informed decision on how we might wish to serve the Creator.
So, again, the article does begin by presenting this laudable goal. I am even willing to believe that the article's authors and sponsors believe in and are genuinely invested in this goal. However, I perceive that either the envisioned manifestation of this goal--the metrics of success, let's say--has been distorted, or the methods of reaching the goal have been distorted, or both. ...
Quote:[C]ompetition for public attention has produced at least three urgent lessons that the scientific community must face as online information environments rapidly displace traditional, mainstream media.
- Implication: Mainstream media should NOT be displaced.
- Implication: Members of the scientific community must (at least, to remain 'in good standing,' let's say) uphold and champion mainstream media.
Quote:One challenge is for scientists to break free from informational homophily. Since the early days of the internet, the scientific community has had a very spotty track record of harnessing the full potential of online communication tools to reach beyond an audience that already follows science and meaningfully connect with those who disagree with or feel disconnected from science. This includes conservative-minded people on climate change; religious audiences on tissue engineering and embryonic stem cell research; and Black, Indigenous, and people-of-color communities on the current pandemic, for example
- Implication: Current 'audience' is not enough.
- Implication: Disagreement or disconnection with (mainstream views on) science must be corrected.
That is, I don't read this passage as saying, "the scientific community could better understand and connect with an underserved audience."
I read the passage as saying, "Our control over the flow over information has failed to persuade or silence dissident opinions. We must reorganize our resources and efforts to convert or dissolve these three highest-risk groups."