Choose the New PBS Science Show

chinmay7 writes "PBS has posted three different pilots for a new science show, and they want viewers to weigh in and help choose one as the regular science feature. All three pilots are viewable as vodcasts. Wired Science aired on January 3rd. The pilot certainly is polished, as one might expect from Wired Magazine, and deals with interesting topics: 'Meet rocket-belt inventors, stem cell explorers and meteorite hunters.' Science Investigators (air date: January 10) seems to be the most 'science' show: 'The investigators examine 30,000-year-old Neanderthal DNA, vanishing frogs, mind-boggling baseball pitches and more.' 22nd Century (air date: January 17) is pretty gimmicky and loud for my taste, but delivers interesting content — 'In the coming decades will all our brains be wired together like networked computers?' So watch and vote."

no more 1hr documentaries

[maynard]

All of these programs utilize the newsmagazine format, with three or four 15 - 20 minute minidocumentaries per program. Unfortunately, this is not enough time to delve into a subject indepth. Hell, an hour isn't enough time either. Nova is falling into the same trap, with their ScienceNOW programming. Is Nature and Frontline the last bastion of serious documentary programming on PBS?

Anything educational please.

[B5_geek]

I am tired of all the "science" shows out there that are more flash and gimmick then cold-facts.

ie.
Naked Science
Nova Now
MythBusters
EVERYTHING on Discovery & TLC

I yearn for impartial & unbiased educational programming that I enjoyed in my youth. Now-a-days it seems that if they don't "wow" you in the first 10 seconds they think they have failed.

An excellent example is Nature shows.
Old goodness:
Lorne Greens New Wilderness, Nature, Undersea Adventures of Jacques Cousteau *, Profiles of Nature.

New Badness:
Croc Hunter**, Fox Special "Worlds most Amazing/Dangerous Animals", etc.

* Jacques Cousteau was Very preachy but (a) it was needed at that time, and (b) it was the first of it's kind.
** I loved how passionate Steve Irwin was about animals, and the first Season of Croc Hunter was awesome. But IMHO I think the show got too much attention and turned into a Jerry Springer of Nature shows and lost it's credibility.

I do not have the attention span of a flea on crack. Take your time and explain the science behind what you are trying to show. I donate to PBS, but only on the 'heavy-science' shows. Alas it seems they don't get the message.

Re:Anything educational please.

[KingSkippus]

I do not have the attention span of a flea on crack.

It's not about your attention span, it's about the fundamental purpose of television: Entertainment.

Believe it or not, even education can be entertaining if presented in the right format. If I only wanted education, I wouldn't watch PBS, I would take a class or study a book. But when I watch PBS or Discovery or any of the other "educational" channels, I'm really shooting for entertainment that appeals to me in an intelligent, well-thought-out manner, not just seeking to learn something for the sake of learning something.

I yearn for impartial & unbiased educational programming that I enjoyed in my youth. Now-a-days it seems that if they don't "wow" you in the first 10 seconds they think they have failed.

Not me, I hated those shows. When I was young, I watched things like The Electric Company ("HEY YOU GUYYYYYYYS!"), 3-2-1 Contact, Schoolhouse Rock, Cosmos, and so on. Plenty of "wow" factor along with fantastic educational content.

I'm also curious why you used the adjectives "impartial" and "unbiased." Are you implying the Myth Busters, Nova, and other such shows are somehow "partial" and "biased" because they're flashy? Are fun and educational mutually exclusive concepts to you?

Vodcasts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Vodcasts? Seriously?

Is it really so incredibly unhip to just say "video files"?

Do we really have a moral imperative to create as many buzzwords as possible?

Re:Anything educational please.

[Aqua OS X]

Anyone geek who hates MythBusters probably also hands out pennies on Halloween.

Re:Anything educational please.

[RichPowers]

So what if Mythbusters isn't about a group of PhDs sitting around in labcoats making precise calculations about various myths. In fact, I like Mythbusters because it shows that science isn't limited to sterile labs and academic conferences. I wouldn't use Mythbusters as a definitive answer to anything, but through its entertaining presentation, it teaches people fundamental aspects of logic, problem solving, and experimentation (scale models, controls, etc.) That alone makes it better than most television shows...

no need to ask, just look at slashdot...

[netsfr]

We all had a chance to put our votes for the best science show in the sidebar just a few weeks ago ;-)

I want them to bring back Bill Nye!

Re:Anything educational please.

[GigsVT]

You really think that's all science is?

Attitudes like yours destroy the credibility of science more than some religious nut.

Science is all around us, it happens every time someone tests a hypothesis.

Break out of your dogma and stop listening to your church bishops that have titles like Dr. or Professor.

Re:"So watch and vote."

[poopdeville]

Better yet, put down those popular science books, enroll at a local university, and get yourself a degree in one of the hard sciences.

Re:"So watch and vote."

[fyngyrz]

None of those are "popular science" books. Wolfram's is literally the groundwork for a new science, Dawkins is a brilliantly (and deeply) reasoned reproach to theists everywhere, and the third title is a "replacement" science, as I indicated, probably no more than crack-pottery, though worth reading for the exercise you get in dealing with the cold water it attempts to throw on the conventional thinking.

You won't find any of them "at a local university." Besides which, most adults, while they may have time to noodle through a book, can't spare the time for a(nother) degree. Families, mortgages, you know. Grown-up stuff. Books allow for time shifting and just about any subject you prefer to chase; unlike both predigested pap you get on TV and the limited set of courses you can choose from at a university. Knowledge is not about degrees, anyway. Degrees mean something else, mainly that you can take direction for a few years and you're probably not bone-stupid.

Re:Why is this necessary?

[BenFranske]

Speaking as someone who grew up with both 3-2-1 Contact and Newton's Apple I concur about resurrecting both of those. There is nothing in the current lineup (PBS or otherwise) of science shows that even approximates the quality found in these. Some of the early Bill Nye (it really was better towards the beginning, trust me) are as close as you come to a pre-teen/teen show like 3-2-1 Contact and he's no longer producing shows. Dragonfly TV doesn't cut it. The Newton's Apple viewer question format was also fantastic and did agreat job of utilizing local subject matter experts from the Minneapolis/St. Paul area including major researchers at the University of Minnesota. There is no question in my mind that such a program was and still is viable, they just took their eye off the ball trying to grow into a multi-host show.

Re:"So watch and vote."

[Mard]

So you're saying that those three books teach a significant amount of science that you won't find on TV? Sure, perhaps if you're comparing a 1 hour program to a book, the book (if it's worth reading, that is) is going to win. But if you compare the equivalent of 1 book's worth time of television programs, some programs will win. The fact that you're so easily able to dismiss an entire medium (television) is JUST AS BAD as those who forgo reading books and spend their lives wasting away watching television.

These three programs (and almost no television program to date, though there are exceptions which I'll point out in a moment) do not claim to teach you everything there is to know about Science_X, instead they introduce the viewer to new and newsworthy science in varying fields. This BROADENS YOUR MIND. Books are terrible at this when compared to a well-created television program, because books can't be produced as often (on the period of years rather than weeks). Books also generally only present a single topic, and thus you would have to read many books to learn of many topics, while each of these 1 hour television programs introduces 6 or 7 current scientific endeavors. I consider myself to at least have a grasp of the basics in many fields, and believe I'm aware of many of the challenges and advancements of today's technology and sciences, but each of these shows managed to find at least one topic that I have never heard of before. If I were seriously interested in any of them, beyond the simple briefing, it would be trivial to find more detailed information on the subjects online or in a library. The best comparison I can find for these programs is a video slashdot: they take tech stories, and provide their own discussion and dissection of the topic. As you're commenting here, it's somewhat obvious you find slashdot worth your time, so it puzzles me why you'd so easily discount a television program you've never watched before.

I watched all three, and the only one I found worth my time was the Science Investigators. It's kind of like Mythbusters, but without the goofy and fun part, and more with the research and footwork part. And instead of myths, they research cool or novel technologies.

An example of a program which attempts to inform the viewer quite a bit about a single subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/tv/blueplan et/ [bbc.co.uk]

We need a new Cosmos

[Anonymous Coward]

Cosmos, the Carl Sagan documentary series from the 80's, has been airing on the Discovery channel this past month. If you want an example of what a science documentary should be this is it. In depth an yet presented in a way that is understandable. Not that I have a problem with the news magazine format but we could really use more programming like Cosmos and more people like Dr. Sagan

I wrote and produced a NOVA; here's my take

[xmark]

PBS has been struggling for years to figure out how to compete against the Discovery nonfiction channels (TLC, Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, and their lesser siblings) in science programming, and to a lesser extent, National Geographic and other comers. PBS has also struggled to see how the long-form documentary can continue to hold market share in a world that won't watch YouTube videos that run longer than two minutes.

The old guard in television cannot fully grok the mindset of those who've come of age during the internet age and its panoply of media choices. But they do understand that without adaptation, they will die. So they tend to focus on acquiring the look-and-feel of new media (but not the vital essences), hoping that will make them seem relevant to new-media users. Lipstick on a pig, and all that. Very nice lipstick, sometimes, but....

NOVA wisely invested early in web programming, and their science websites are superb examples of what can be done with Web 1.0. (Heh heh, I should disclose I wrote one of those to go along with the film I made. You can see it here. [pbs.org] Check out the "Dispatches" section for some old-skool science blogging.)

NOVA on television has resisted surrendering its brand identity against immense financial pressure, as well as cultural pressure to "liven up," "get hip," and other assorted me-too thinking that says no one will sit and watch a quality hour anymore. NOVA hasn't quite caved, but you can see the difference when comparing latest product against films from earlier years. Still, once you see what they've been up against, NOVA is still a marvel of principle and plain old stubbornness.

As for the purported modern lack of an audience for high-quality single-subject programs...I don't buy it.

I'm part of the PBS advisory panel that's "focus-grouping" these new shows. (They don't even know I'm one of their past producers...and I ain't sayin'.) Trust me, PBS has marshaled extraordinary user input throughout the development of this new programming. They have done their homework. Nonetheless, I've been thinking it was the wrong homework assignment.

IMO, focus-group design by consensus can yield good quality, but not brilliance. Can anyone imagine focus-grouping The Secret Life of Machines? The Day the Universe Changed? (Or to stretch it a bit, even Mystery Science Theater 3000?) Those shows, and other greats, rely on irrepressible characters who, like the author of a great book, slowly but surely make you realize they're in on a great secret. And that they want to let you in on it.

Ok, some of these people are not poster children for The Seven Habits of Successful People, and could probably use a better haircut, but you just know they'd be doing this show for free (or maybe they did). It's not their panache but their passion that infects you like a Russian hacker's virus and absorbs you into their conspiracy. Their world is more full of dynamite and diamond pipes and Tesla coils and grizzly bears taking sunbaths and...and...they seem to have figured out how one thing connects to another. Their world is equal parts revealed truth and grand fun. Maybe even more grand fun than revealed truth. They make you realize the riches of the world lie around your feet like November leaves in such abundance that you haven't even noticed them as you kick your way forward each day.

They open your eyes. They make you stay awake in your bed way too late and dream about the places you really can't wait any longer to go...and damn it, someday you will...then you fall asleep.

I love Wired magazine, and have all kinds of cool electronica, and download books off Demonoid while I'm TiVoing BBC docs while I'm walking the stacks at the library while I'm listening to a podcast. But that doesn't mean I want a science show modeled on Entertainment Tonight's magazine format. I don't want hip poseurs, even if they've been coached not to seem like poseurs. I don't want beautiful people