Dumbing down of The Science Channel.

Hontas Farmer

More reality programs, less hard science coverage, and when they do cover hard science it's watered down. This is all true as the production values of the programs have increased while the science value has decreased.
When the science channel started many years ago here are some of the shows they had.

Skeptical Inquirer - Cold hands off debunking of things like acupuncture.
Understanding - in depth hard core exposition of physics, chemistry, or biology.
A number of documentary series.

One and a half to two years ago they had shows such as...

Myth Busters - Hot (usually singed by explosions or electricity) investigations of things like acupuncture, "magnet healing" and urban myth's.
Survivor man
Hot rocks -geology
A number of documentary series and specials.

Now(Their actual line up)

How it's made
Popular science "the future of..."
Beyond tomorrow
Mythbusters
Mantracker
Survivorman
Weaponmasters
You catch it you keep it
Junkyard wars
The Universe
Various mostly one off documentaries (i.e. about Jan Hendrik Schon and his shenanigans).

Do you see what I mean? The number of reality shows has increased year upon year and the hours of real science related programming has gone down. How in the hell are Mantracker and "you catch it you keep it" science? Mythbusters at least still tries to be science (and succeeds). Survivorman and other "science of survival" type things are legit but Mantracker is really not that at all. Now "You catch it you keep it" is so STTTUUUUUUPPIIIIIIIDDDD!!!! It defies explanation! I mean in that whole lineup there is only one show on "the science channel" which would have hard science. Then if you watch that show that science is so watered down... it is the near beer of science. Sci-Q Sunday's is no more, not that there was much there in the first place.

Aside from the lower quantity and quality of science content there are fewer documentary series. More and more one off one time documentaries as if the target audience is now one thought to have a shorter attention span.

This all adds up to the channel that was for science being reduced to being little more than a dumping ground for those things that can't make it on the discovery channel weather they be science related or not. Not to mention more shows that are about twisted metal in what could only be a play for the male 18-35 demographic. Since the science channel can't just do what Spike TV does and have the blatantly sexual programming .... they have they have to begrudgingly keep a thin veneer of science over their attempt.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Survivor man and Myth busters, they were a change of pace. Now they have been so copied and so many derivatives have been produced that it's just too much. Put that stuff on a different channel.

Comments

I guess we'll know if they start doing weekly "Shroud of Turin" features.

P.S. Was this meant to be written, structurally, like some kind of haiku?

Hank Campbell | 09/01/09 | 22:21 PM

lol Yeah as long as they only do the shroud around easter Id be ok with seeing a show about it.
The structure is a stream of consciousness. It's what I was thinking as I thought it. The list in the middle, where I list X shows and Y years ago is meant to show that the number of reality shows on that channel has increased beyond all proportion.

Hontas Farmer | 09/02/09 | 02:30 AM

Reality shows can sometimes be a hint at attempts to lower programming costs, but that doesn't look like the case here (http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB124146776208384429,00.html).

I agree it's a bit disheartening as a reflection of public tastes, but in all fairness you may see it as a reflection of science as well.

kerr jac | 09/03/09 | 22:00 PM

I think it's more a reflection of the state of television, that a channel dedicated to science feels it needs to dumb down to get more viewers. It reminds me of what went on with Star Trek:Enterprise. Paramount wanted to get hip cool young viewers that advertisers know spend their money like fools. In the process they wanted to be unfaithful to the fan base, thinking that nerds like them wouldn't leave them.
Discovery networks is making the same mistake. The people who want the science channel want science. A little science-entertainment like Mythbusters and Survivorman was acceptable. Those shows were not only very original and daring projects for TV but they had a respectable amount of practical science and technology. When a TV show just becomes about breaking expensive things that's just stupid. I think this can be blamed on some network exec who sees G4TV as the science channels competition for males 18-35. A much sought demographic in ratings. Which has blatantly stupid and sexual TV shows. They get a pass because they are not a .... thinking channel. For lack of a better word.

I worry that if shows like that catch on next thing you know the network will seek more of them, to get the ad revenue, to make more money.... It will spiral into a race to the bottom. The least common denominator of thought (eat, sleep, s_it, and F__k) will win over physics, biology, and chemistry.

Hontas Farmer | 09/04/09 | 07:59 AM

I worry that if shows like that catch on next thing you know the
network will seek more of them, to get the ad revenue, to make more
money.... It will spiral into a race to the bottom. The least common
denominator of thought (eat, sleep, s_it, and F__k) will win over
physics, biology, and chemistry.

Undoubtedly there's a niche for science programming, but who is to say whether there is enough demand to take up a whole channel (or few channels),&whether there's enough demand to have every show on that channel directly relate to science? Science Channel's programming decisions may affect future demand (eg, a race to the bottom), but more likely they're a reflection of what the execs think that people will watch.

If the channel underestimates demand for science programs & strays too far from it, then some other channel will likely threaten their domain. The question is at what point will they stray far enough from science such that new competition for science programming will pose a risk? It's impossible to know precisely, but the execs are most likely making informed decisions while keeping a tight watch on maintaining their domain. That they're able to stray so far from their (science) niche indicates that this domain may not be that big.

The point is that you also have to judge their decisions - not only on the quality of their programming - but on the feasibility of doing something different, eg a return to good science shows. Continually plugging away at the science shows may pose a risk to their future. They can keep trying, but over the past few decades, similar learning channels have strayed as well.

It maybe that we just haven't struck the magic formula for making science entertaining in this medium. But it's more likely that this medium is not very conducive for science.

I used to watch Bill Nye as a kid, but looking back on it his bells-&-whistles "crazy" guy persona bears uncanny resemblance to Jim Cramer.

kerr jac | 09/05/09 | 10:48 AM

Bill Nye and his "crazy" guy persona. lol. I can forgive him though. I'm sure he was a good entry point for allot of young scientist.
you may be right that there might not be the demand for science related content. What I think though is the whole TV entertainment mentality that permeates the TV industry would lead to an underestimation of the demand. The kind of person who usually goes into TV, and entertainment.... they are artist. Many artist think of science as boring, bland stuff. That only boring bland stereotypical scientist care about. Then they do a draw a scientist test and draw pictures like this. I wonder if the top execs in control of the science channel even watch it?

The point is that you also have to judge their decisions - not only on the quality of their programming - but on the feasibility of doing something different, eg a return to good science shows. Continually plugging away at the science shows may pose a risk to their future. They can keep trying, but over the past few decades, similar learning channels have strayed as well.

I get that. If they beat the science drum too hard and forget that it has to be entertaining too that could be a problem. I think the key for them is to keep the science programming fresh. I mean, if they play the same stuff, every day, nothing new no one would watch. On the other hand if they go all reality show on us...we'll we have Fox Reality Channel for that stuff.

Hontas Farmer | 09/05/09 | 14:12 PM

It might just hard to portray science on TV. History, by contrast, is very TV-friendly: You're telling a human story, you may have historical footage, reenactments. Theoretical math may lie on the opposite of the spectrum as hard to portray over the tube.

The kind of person who usually goes into TV, and entertainment.... they are artist. Many artist think of science as boring, bland stuff.

Although it's been tried over&over again, and hasn't succeeded too well, I do share your skepticism that there must be *some* way to have good science programming. I get the impression that past efforts have had to dumb science down and/or make it fantastical, either with crazy hosts or by tapping sweeping emotions Carl Sagan-style. A more practical approach might just be to keep it down to earth and realistic.

For example, Consumer Reports sometimes has interesting scientific tidbits, and I've always thought that they could elaborate on them or make a show on the science of making/testing consumer goods. Or they could have shows realistically surveying different areas of science, updating viewers on developing trends themes and controversies, and discussing future directions, not unlike 20/20 or Meet the Press.

The problem I've found with Science Channel shows is that their out-of-this-world approach will catch my attention for a day or maybe even a week, but it won't hold it over the long term. But at the same time it doesn't have to be ultra-down to earth like their show on how stuff is made, which is nice but after a while feels like CNN Headline news, no continuity.

I think they just need to be practical and genuine about things, and the science will speak for itself. Science is broad and is all around us, and if you're only way of hooking people is having things like Carl Sagan standing on a beach likening earth to a grain of sand, then you're not really about science anyway.

kerr jac | 09/05/09 | 21:09 PM

This is not the only "educational"channel that has lowered its standards and included more "reality" tv shows. Everyone forgets that these are not free channels--we pay for them. We have just lost our voice because channels are sold as part of a package instead of individually, like they used to be. Now we, as consumers and viewers, have a harder time making ourselves heard, and thus having an effect on the programming. If channels were sold individually, we could customize our tv choices. If people could stop purchasing particular channels, the execs would make a change when they couldn't sell advertising time on their channels because their viewing audience numbers are too low. This brings up another point. I don't mind paying for tv worth watching. When they started showing ads on pay tv (really showing my age now), it was annoying, but again, it was tv worth watching. Now, I am paying for reality tv with ads and barely any quality tv shows. It is pretty bad when you have over a hundred channels but find yourself scanning and scanning the guide for something worthwhile to watch. Enough of the reality tv. I want tv that enriches MY life not tv that allows me to watch someone else's low class, or mindless escapades.

Anonymous (not verified) | 09/26/09 | 22:20 PM

I agree whole heartedly. Most reality TV shows are where the producers pick the most annoying, or most histrionic people they can find. Then they throw them into situations which bring out the worst in people. The only ones that have/had any redeeming qualities to me were ones where they were either going to give someone a job at the end (Hells Kitchen, The Apprentice), or one of those reality dating shows...where the people involved were really serious about starting a long term relationship and weren't just publicity hounds. Like you said we don't pay to watch those either so I can tolerate those.

IF the science channel made a reality/documentary series about the real life of scientist, or the real world of academia that might be more appropriate.
Instead we get "You catch it you keep it" the new bowling for dollars.

Hontas Farmer | 09/27/09 | 06:23 AM

I just noticed today that even the History Channel is jumping on the reality bandwagon. They ran a whole marathon on their new show Pawn Stars. This is a show like Antiques Road Show but takes place in various pawn shops. I can't believe that this is the best they could come up with for the new season. Are people really that into reality shows? I am a homeschooling mom of two teens. We planned on using the history channel to supplement my kids' history curriculum. And today my son saw an ad about a new show the Science channel is going to have-- a game show--jeez. Once again, I signed up for satellite tv and chose my channel package expecting to be paying for quality tv. I guess if one wants access to quality educational videos, one needs to subscribe to discoveryeducation.com. I am going to email both the history channel and the discovery channel and complain about their recent programming choices. I encourage everyone who agrees to do the same. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Anonymous from 9/26 or homeschooljen (not verified) | 09/27/09 | 23:52 PM

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here