I have rarely seen my friend CP get angry. In addition to being one of the most intelligent, he is one of the most understanding, balanced and loving people I know, but also has the attitude and determination when the situation calls for it. Perhaps because they are less, their disagreements have more power than others who often play in transition (like my best friend JC or me). For this reason, when CP decided to have breakfast last Saturday, I didn’t want to be near his living room and walk leisurely through the news to find out what our neighbor’s latest choice in Zendal is, despite its economic, health and scientific impact. A section of the European Union to ensure the production of vaccines against possible epidemics (see here), was hidden in the “Community” section of one of the largest national circulation newspapers. A chemist and entrepreneur, aware of the spread and disillusioned by the thematic position of such related news, they say that they were asked in Touro with their epicenter until they reached Tarragona … That’s why I came up with the idea of ​​presenting the concept you have in front of you, your eyes on the importance of the institutional presence of science in the media.
Let’s start with a comparative reflection: can you imagine that after the news of the signing of the latest star of La Liga football, you read the obituary of the death of your neighbor from the 5th in the pages of “debrologicas” (sports and obituary)? Can you share the same paragraph with the weekly prediction of the future of “our beloved Aries” and the evolution of the IBEX-35 in the “Predictions” section (economics and horoscope)? Will they publish an article on the proposals heard in the Sánchez-Feijú debate, next to a report on “the best cases to attract votes”, all under the global heading of “politillo” (politics and civilisation)? You may find these examples implausible because of the incompatibility of their themes. Like the details of Tamara Falco’s wedding dress in one printed or pixelated space, the brightest exoplanet in our history has been discovered. Or maybe not?
That’s how it is. While there are many instances where science and its advances have saved us as a species (and you will agree with me) its contribution to our quality of life is undoubtedly (with all due respect) more than it can offer. Iñigo Onieva, science is constantly relegated to the “mix box” of so-called “society”, in which celebrities, interests, unsubstantiated research results and news about an endless variety of topics confuse “entertainment”. “.
Primarily, this shouldn’t be a problem because entertainment is a necessary and legitimate human need and information, if the media has superpowers and additional overlords, are issues for society to think about. (not as it should be thought), that is, they develop the capacity for critical evaluation of issues related to our evolution, and form what we have come to call “opinion public”.
In this way, citizens make personal judgments about what is important in the public life of our environment as a result of certain issues being more or less present in information spaces. The greater and better the presence in the media, the more salient the issue is in our social conscience, and the less presence or greater the prevalence, the less “public opinion” the relevance of the news to our society.
According to a study on “Information Consumption Patterns” by the BBVA Foundation, three out of four Spaniards use newspapers for information. This problem appears when, among the ten most widely distributed newspapers in Spain, only two newspapers have “National”, “Opinion” or “a specific scientific section in the first level structure of their titles (El PaÃs and El Mundo). Economy”. All others cover scientific content at a second level under the headings of “culture” or “society”, but without giving it the relevance and freedom that “sport” might have, for example, in addition to their own detailed sections. Of all of them, three particular newspapers (Marca, Az and Mundo Deportivo) are the most widely read. Doesn’t that sound remarkable?
This may be one of the reasons that explain the recent “Study on the Social View of Science and Technology” by the Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology (FECYT), according to which the Spanish people consider the information they receive about science to be positive. (84.0%), true (71.5%) and comprehensible (60.2%), which is inadequate (76.7%) and superficial (60.5%).
Both language and frequency and institutional level become necessary to transfer research developments and concerns (including its associated institutions) to the community in a clear and comprehensible manner, with its own place and content. Same level of fit.
All of us, scientists and the media, have a long way to go. We can only achieve together. Public communication of science is a social responsibility of both parties, and its frequency, reliability and relevance are necessary and essential to achieve a scientific, informed and committed society, to create a culture that contributes to the incorporation of scientific knowledge into daily practice. Science..
