next »

[post_functional]

In terms of science embedded in kids shows, it still exists if one looks beyond princesses and Spongebob. 

I want to see it in the princesses and Spongebob.

[polly_mer]

In terms of science embedded in kids shows, it still exists if one looks beyond princesses and Spongebob. 

I want to see it in the princesses and Spongebob.

Why?  That's not a snarky question, but a serious one from my view as a scientist who does see science everywhere and actively works to point out that science in daily life.

If you make me watch some of those things <shudder>, I could probably point out some science or at least things that indicate that someone got the science right.  The physics in most of the realistic setting princess cartoons is usually pretty good.  The biology and ecology of forests and other settings (insofar as I can judge with my seventh grade life science training and as a reader of popular science) tends to be ok.  The underwater scenes for many of the random cartoons do have the fluid mechanics right.  The CGI in the Pixar stuff shows the right physics because the animators put a ton of effort into making it right.  The chemistry of some of the elixirs in the magical princesses is sometimes right enough in terms of showing what would happen mixing various things together.

I would prefer to have some things be more natural than the heavy-handed preachiness on many of the cartoons and children's shows.  Blocky does not watch Dora or Arthur or many of the PBS produced shows simply because they are much too "educational" in the negative sense of lecturing instead of being educational through a natural setting ala discovery pedagogy or case study pedagogy where the lessons learned are part of a normal experience instead of being that thing you endure in the classroom to get the right answer on somebody else's test, but have nothing to do with your own life.

Blocky doesn't get to watch Spongebob and many princesses simply because the natural lessons learned there about how society works are not the ones that I want him to internalize, not because they aren't full enough of science.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

Although I wasn't actually there, I'm very interested in the 50s and 60s

What do you want to know?

What was up with all those staid, uptight-looking sans serif fonts and typefaces?

Do I look Swiss to you? - DvF

[jackit]

Although I wasn't actually there, I'm very interested in the 50s and 60s

What do you want to know?

Chemistry sets were big sellers for kids.  When's the last time you heard about a kid getting a chemistry set?  I wouldn't know where to find one.

The best ones are on ebay.  When I was a kid they came with uranium. - DvF

Did you snort it?  My buddy and I snorted a lot of chemicals to see which were the nastiest.

[post_functional]

In terms of science embedded in kids shows, it still exists if one looks beyond princesses and Spongebob.  

I want to see it in the princesses and Spongebob.

Why?  That's not a snarky question, but a serious one from my view as a scientist who does see science everywhere and actively works to point out that science in daily life.

You answer your own question:

I would prefer to have some things be more natural than the heavy-handed preachiness on many of the cartoons and children's shows.

What children's programming has lost the ability to do is be fun and cool and educational at the same time.  It's one or the other today.  But it didn't use to be.  I admit that much of the surreptitious science curriculum was in superhero cartoons, but not always.  Shows like Scooby Doo, for instance, had scientific skepticism at the core of its premise.  There are no ghosts.  Just people in masks and special effects, who would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog.

What I suspect you're actually resisting, polly, deep down, is the awareness that the unfettered, deregulated free market has fallen short of its obligation to create socially responsible children's programming.  And that TV stations won't do this unless the gubmint makes TV stations do this.  I'm all for the gubmint making them, and you're not.  A lot of really wonderful programming came out of the era when the FCC required a certain amount of educational content and a certain amount of public affairs programming.  But that's all gone, because it doesn't make profits! profits! profits! in the "free" market.  It's a curious thing how when the "free" market becomes deregulated and "free," the actual results become fewer choices for the consumer, not greater, because producers gravitate toward the homogeneity of the middle of the bell curve to maximize the profit potential.

[fiona]

A lot of this seems to be "It used to be great in the old days, but now we're in the sh1tty present where everything is dumbed down."

Adults always seemed smarter and/or more powerful when we were younger and smaller.

I will repeat what the Athenians warbled to Socrates about the rude youths of the day: "Why can't they be like we were, perfect in every way . . ."

The Fiona, classmate of Methuselah

[polly_mer]

What children's programming has lost the ability to do is be fun and cool and educational at the same time.  It's one or the other today.  But it didn't use to be.  I admit that much of the surreptitious science curriculum was in superhero cartoons, but not always.  Shows like Scooby Doo, for instance, had scientific skepticism at the core of its premise.  There are no ghosts.  Just people in masks and special effects, who would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog.

What I suspect you're actually resisting, polly, deep down, is the awareness that the unfettered, deregulated free market has fallen short of its obligation to create socially responsible children's programming.  And that TV stations won't do this unless the gubmint makes TV stations do this.  I'm all for the gubmint making them, and you're not.  A lot of really wonderful programming came out of the era when the FCC required a certain amount of educational content and a certain amount of public affairs programming.  But that's all gone, because it doesn't make profits! profits! profits! in the "free" market.  It's a curious thing how when the "free" market becomes deregulated and "free," the actual results becomes fewer choices for the consumer, not greater, because producers gravitate toward the homogeneity of the middle of the bell curve to maximize the profit potential.

Obviously, you and I aren't watching the same television because I see several hours a day of television that is every bit as good (and sometimes better) as what I saw as a kid and is suitable for children.  You can keep your crummy old Sesame Street and Arthur because I would much rather have The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Kids, The History Channel, The Military Channel, Nickelodeon, Nicktoons, Disney XD, and The Cartoon Network.  I also love Comedy Central and Syfy , but most of those shows are not suitable for children.  Oh, and I also watch BBC America, which is offered here because there's a market, but uses government-produced shows (just not our government-produced shows).

You can make an argument for regulation having been good for requiring ABC, NBC, and CBS to do something other than sex and violence or bland pap, but the rise of cable and specialty markets for science and for children's programming has given some pretty good results.  

[terpsichore]

What children's programming has lost the ability to do is be fun and cool and educational at the same time.  It's one or the other today.  But it didn't use to be.  I admit that much of the surreptitious science curriculum was in superhero cartoons, but not always.  Shows like Scooby Doo, for instance, had scientific skepticism at the core of its premise.  There are no ghosts.  Just people in masks and special effects, who would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog.

What I suspect you're actually resisting, polly, deep down, is the awareness that the unfettered, deregulated free market has fallen short of its obligation to create socially responsible children's programming.  And that TV stations won't do this unless the gubmint makes TV stations do this.  I'm all for the gubmint making them, and you're not.  A lot of really wonderful programming came out of the era when the FCC required a certain amount of educational content and a certain amount of public affairs programming.  But that's all gone, because it doesn't make profits! profits! profits! in the "free" market.  It's a curious thing how when the "free" market becomes deregulated and "free," the actual results becomes fewer choices for the consumer, not greater, because producers gravitate toward the homogeneity of the middle of the bell curve to maximize the profit potential.

Obviously, you and I aren't watching the same television because I see several hours a day of television that is every bit as good (and sometimes better) as what I saw as a kid and is suitable for children.  You can keep your crummy old Sesame Street and Arthur because I would much rather have The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Kids, The History Channel, The Military Channel, Nickelodeon, Nicktoons, Disney XD, and The Cartoon Network.  I also love Comedy Central and Syfy , but most of those shows are not suitable for children.  Oh, and I also watch BBC America, which is offered here because there's a market, but uses government-produced shows (just not our government-produced shows).

You can make an argument for regulation having been good for requiring ABC, NBC, and CBS to do something other than sex and violence or bland pap, but the rise of cable and specialty markets for science and for children's programming has given some pretty good results.  

It doesn't bother you that the Science Channel (and to a lesser extent the Discovery Channel) are explicitly targeted at men, according to their own corporate web site?

http://corporate.discovery.com/brands/us/science-channel/

[biomancer]

What children's programming has lost the ability to do is be fun and cool and educational at the same time.  It's one or the other today.  But it didn't use to be.  I admit that much of the surreptitious science curriculum was in superhero cartoons, but not always.  Shows like Scooby Doo, for instance, had scientific skepticism at the core of its premise.  There are no ghosts.  Just people in masks and special effects, who would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their dog.

What I suspect you're actually resisting, polly, deep down, is the awareness that the unfettered, deregulated free market has fallen short of its obligation to create socially responsible children's programming.  And that TV stations won't do this unless the gubmint makes TV stations do this.  I'm all for the gubmint making them, and you're not.  A lot of really wonderful programming came out of the era when the FCC required a certain amount of educational content and a certain amount of public affairs programming.  But that's all gone, because it doesn't make profits! profits! profits! in the "free" market.  It's a curious thing how when the "free" market becomes deregulated and "free," the actual results becomes fewer choices for the consumer, not greater, because producers gravitate toward the homogeneity of the middle of the bell curve to maximize the profit potential.

Obviously, you and I aren't watching the same television because I see several hours a day of television that is every bit as good (and sometimes better) as what I saw as a kid and is suitable for children.  You can keep your crummy old Sesame Street and Arthur because I would much rather have The Discovery Channel, The Science Channel, Discovery Kids, The History Channel, The Military Channel, Nickelodeon, Nicktoons, Disney XD, and The Cartoon Network.  I also love Comedy Central and Syfy , but most of those shows are not suitable for children.  Oh, and I also watch BBC America, which is offered here because there's a market, but uses government-produced shows (just not our government-produced shows).

You can make an argument for regulation having been good for requiring ABC, NBC, and CBS to do something other than sex and violence or bland pap, but the rise of cable and specialty markets for science and for children's programming has given some pretty good results. 

It doesn't bother you that the Science Channel (and to a lesser extent the Discovery Channel) are explicitly targeted at men, according to their own corporate web site?

http://corporate.discovery.com/brands/us/science-channel/

I can't speak for Polly, but it doesn't bother me.  Most of the shows that are targeted at women are either soap operas or daytime talk shows, both of which I generally abhor, fashion/design shows, which I find mostly useless, or cooking shows, which I do enjoy and watch with my husband, who also cooks.  Perhaps the executives at the Science Channel haven't figured out that half the scientists out in the world have indoor plumbing, but that doesn't mean that the shows don't appeal to me.

One of the things I got used to a very long time ago is that most of what interests me is theoretically targeted at males.  I think that the people designing the TV shows, magazines, etc. are mostly male and don't think about the fact that there are a lot of women out there like me (and Polly, if I can safely include her in this statement) who enjoy finding out how things work.    (I should point out that I've become quite fond of DIY network in the past year, and while I don't really care who they think their demographic is, their shows, hosts, and even commercials include and are friendly to both genders (and even different gender identities - quite a few of the home renovation projects have been in homes of same-sex couples) doing the construction work.  But I digress.)

Oh, and I very much like PF's point about shows like Scooby Doo.  I really enjoyed that as a kid, and I think that kids (and adults) can always benefit from a good dose of skepticism and critical thinking.  I think Polly and Post_Functional both raise valid points here - yes, deregulation has led to a lot of profit-driven dreck, but there are also now networks that cater to the more educational topics as well, and there have been what I consider to be some pretty good TV series even after deregulation.  On the whole, it's probably a wash.

[terpsichore]

On the one hand, the Science Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. are businesses; in a free market, they can target whatever audience they think will make them a profit, and that's fine with me.

On the other hand, they list this 'target demographic' in conjunction with partnerships with several large scientific organizations and government agencies (AAAS, NASA, NOAA) which implies endorsement of the demographic from these organizations. I find this discouraging.

[polly_mer]

Terpsichore,

I had to read the page three times to find the one little line mentioning the target demographic because I was distracted by

Science Channel is the only network devoted entirely to the wonders of science, including in-depth coverage of breaking and current science news. The network immerses viewers in the incredible possibilities of science, from string theory and futuristic cities to accidental discoveries and outrageous inventions.  Science Channel takes things apart, peers inside and puts things together in new and unexpected ways.  It celebrates the trials, errors and brinking moments that change our lives forever

I'm not sure what brinking moments are, but the rest of it both describes what the channel does and why I watch.  Like Biomancer, I think it's somewhat odd to ignore that a good portion of STEM folks are biologically female, but it's not the terrible, terrible tragedy that you seem to think it is since I can't tell that men are their target demographic despite hours of watching this channel every week.  If the people at The Science Channel are trying to discriminate against women, then they are failing or, again to flash over to the other thread, I'm somehow confused about my own experiences.  I think it is more likely that the folks at The Science Channel looked at the fact that women comprise far less than 50% of physical scientists and engineers and then put their target demographic in a form that the advertisers understand.  No advertiser is looking for the science demographic, but advertisers look very much at gender and age to play to stereotypes on the larger scale.

On the other hand, they list this 'target demographic' in conjunction with partnerships with several large scientific organizations and government agencies (AAAS, NASA, NOAA) which implies endorsement of the demographic from these organizations. I find this discouraging.

Ah, I'm pretty sure that this is a case where the way that scientists think differs greatly from the way that humanities folks think.  I seriously doubt that any physical or life scientist or engineer is making that inference; people who spend a lot of time thinking about the world in terms of winners and losers in protected groups and who is getting a fair shake and who is getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop under specific circumstances will pick up that point right away and run with it.  Those of us who don't spend a lot of time in that mode are thinking, "Cool, that latest expedition from Agency X could be on in the fall!" without noticing at all that demographic.

Of course, I, despite being an avid watcher of this network, would never end up on this webpage if it weren't pointed out because it's bland, boring, and has nothing to do with the parts of the channel that any STEM person (outside of sociologists studying advertising perhaps) would care about.  The mention of the demographic is far, far less interesting in any sense than going to Science Channel website (http://science.discovery.com/), where the first picture I saw was Kari from Mythbusters on the top part that advertises upcoming shows and then a stack of very cool links about science news and upcoming events.

Again, if they are actively trying to discriminate against women (instead of putting up who is necessarily the largest component of their audience according to the categories insisted upon by advertisers), then they are doing a poor job because most of those shows have casts or interviews or what have you that are representative of the relevant population.  In fact, if anything, the people at the channel give a false overimpression of how many women are in the general scientific pool because I see many more women experts on camera in some areas than the probability of a random sampling of experts would indicate.

[biomancer]

I suspect that Polly did notice this, but for anyone else who might have missed it, if you look on the page Terpsichore linked to, and look in the little gray box on the right, it says this:

# The only network devoted entirely to the wonders of science
# Targeting men 25-54 (my emphasis)
# Launched: October 1996
# Subscribers: 66 million U.S. households; 42 million international subscribers to Discovery Science

I suspect that's what Terpsichore is referencing.  Now, I do notice that more of the ads are targeted towards men than women (and I see this on DIY as well), but if that means that I'm watching ads for Old Spice instead of Secret I really don't care (heck, the Man Your Man Could Smell Like ads are great!).  Mostly I see ads for tools, household and yard machinery, and other things that might be focused at men but aren't outright sexist.  The person running the nifty gadget might be male, but at no point is it said or insinuated that only men can/should use said gadget.  I think it makes more sense to have ads for those admittedly male-skewed gadgets on the Science Channel than to have ads for, say, "feminine protection products" (unless the rabbit from Bloom County was right, in which case I want my chartreuse flamethrower).

So... I think that my point is that I seem to agree with Polly - if these people are trying to discriminate against women, they're not doing a very good job.

[terpsichore]

I have bolded the passages I'm responding to.

Terpsichore,

I had to read the page three times to find the one little line mentioning the target demographic because I was distracted by

Science Channel is the only network devoted entirely to the wonders of science, including in-depth coverage of breaking and current science news. The network immerses viewers in the incredible possibilities of science, from string theory and futuristic cities to accidental discoveries and outrageous inventions.  Science Channel takes things apart, peers inside and puts things together in new and unexpected ways.  It celebrates the trials, errors and brinking moments that change our lives forever

I'm not sure what brinking moments are, but the rest of it both describes what the channel does and why I watch.  Like Biomancer, I think it's somewhat odd to ignore that a good portion of STEM folks are biologically female, but it's not the terrible, terrible tragedy that you seem to think it is.

On the other hand, they list this 'target demographic' in conjunction with partnerships with several large scientific organizations and government agencies (AAAS, NASA, NOAA) which implies endorsement of the demographic from these organizations. I find this discouraging.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that I think it is a terrible, terrible tragedy. I said that in a free market they have a right to whatever demographic they want but that I am discouraged that this is linked to endorsements by AAAS, NASA, and NOAA.

Ah, I'm pretty sure that this is a case where the way that scientists think differs greatly from the way that humanities folks think.  I seriously doubt that any physical or life scientist or engineer is making that inference; people who spend a lot of time thinking about the world in terms of winners and losers in protected groups and who is getting a fair shake and who is getting the fuzzy end of the lollipop under specific circumstances will pick up that point right away and run with it.   Those of us who don't spend a lot of time in that mode are thinking, "Cool, that latest expedition from Agency X could be on in the fall!" without noticing at all that demographic.

I find it curious that you would leap to the assumption that I am in the humanities and that I therefore spend a lot of my time thinking about the world in terms of protected groups. You are wrong on both counts. I am a physical scientist in one of the fields you have acknowledged as a valid physical science on another thread. I'm a tenured full professor in this field at an R1 university. The demographic listing was brought to my attention by another physical scientist who found it of concern.

Of course, I, despite being an avid watcher of this network, would never end up on this webpage if it weren't pointed out because it's bland, boring, and has nothing to do with the parts of the channel that any STEM person (outside of sociologists studying advertising perhaps) would care about.  The mention of the demographic is far, far less interesting in any sense than going to Science Channel website (http://science.discovery.com/), where the first picture I saw was Kari from Mythbusters on the top part that advertises upcoming shows and then a stack of very cool links about science news and upcoming events.

Again, if they are actively trying to discriminate against women (instead of putting up who is necessarily the largest component of their audience according to the categories insisted upon by advertisers), then they are doing a poor job because most of those shows have casts or interviews or what have you that are representative of the relevant population.  In fact, if anything, the people at the channel give a false overimpression of how many women are in the general scientific pool because I see many more women experts on camera in some areas than the probability of a random sampling of experts would indicate.

I did not say that they are actively trying to discriminate against women. Merely that they are targeting men. Again, fine from a free-market point of view. Annoying when it comes with the associated endorsements on the same page.

[polly_mer]

Interesting, Terspichore.  I don't know what to tell you other than the fact that you are the first anyone who has pointed out the desired demographic of the Science Channel and then indicated an implication of endorsement of that demographic for science by government agencies.  I bring up the Science Channel in reasonably frequent conversations with other scientists (male and female) and the general way this discussion goes is "I love this show.  Did you see that show?  I use this example from that show in my classes for this topic."

As Biomancer wrote, the only noticeable, possible male bias I see is in terms of having more ads probably geared toward men (I notice the truck ads most) show up than are present when I watch channels that are geared more toward women like Lifetime.

So, in answer to your original question, I'm sticking with "No, it doesn't bother me to have men ages 25-54 be the target audience" with a supplement of "It doesn't bother me to have a commercial television channel work  in collaboration with federal agencies to provide programming to the general public even if the explicit statement of the target audience in some tiny print somewhere doesn't include me".  I am not bothered by the various governmental sponsors for events put on by the Society for Women Engineers, the Society for Hispanic Engineers, the National Society of Black Physicists, and the like, so why would I be bothered by a general audience set of shows put out for everyone so that we have to go digging to find out who is the target,  which is much more inclusive than those groups who explicitly state who is expected to attend?

It seems to me that you (or at least the person who pointed it out to you) are trying to find a way to be offended by what is a pretty useful endeavor for the general public: men, women, and children.

[spork]

When I was dating, my target demographic was women 25-50 years old.  Some of them were scientists.  Therefore, I was discriminating against men who wanted to be scientists.