All Episodes
Previous Next
Plain Text
April 12, 2016 - Skeptoid
16:45
Skeptoid #514: Your Thoughts on Making Skepticism Commercial

A proposal for how we can make skeptical programming more attractive to a larger audience. Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|

Time Text
Why Sensationalism Wins 00:01:53
If you're a longtime listener to Skeptoid, you know that I believe in the importance of people learning how the world really works, learning how to tell fact from fiction.
I also believe that it's doomed to fail because reality attracts so much less attention and money than does sensationalism.
In this episode, I'm going to present the results of a survey when I asked all of you for your thoughts on that same question.
Making skepticism commercial is coming up next on Skeptoid.
A quick reminder for everyone, you're listening to Skeptoid, revealing the true science and true history behind urban legends every week since 2006.
With over a thousand episodes, we're celebrating 20 years of keeping it focused and keeping it brief.
And we couldn't have done it without your curiosity leading the way.
And now we're even offering a little bit more.
If you become a premium member, supporting the show with a monthly micropayment of as little as $5, you get more Skeptoid.
The premium version of the show is not only ad-free, it has extended content.
These episodes are a few minutes longer.
We get rid of the ads and we'll replace them with more Skeptoid.
The Extended Premium Show available now.
Come to Skeptoid.com and click Go Premium.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from Skeptoid.com.
Your thoughts on making skepticism commercial.
Perhaps the biggest reason that Woo and pseudoscience are so much more popular than skepticism in the marketplace is that that's where people direct their money.
Making Skepticism Commercial 00:14:29
People want magically easy solutions to problems more than they want realistic ones.
And people want sensational news more than they want true news.
And so we see worthless fad products flooding the stores and television networks swamped with garbage, faux documentaries, and paranormalism.
What can we do about this?
I went out to Skeptoid members and asked that question.
I visited this subject before a few years ago.
Episode 163 was devoted to my own thoughts on this matter, particularly within television.
We're not going to persuade people to stop craving sensationalism.
So we have to make good science and good information more sensational.
I argued that it's a difficult prospect because producing quality programming means you have to adhere to certain standards that current cable networks ignore.
But it's not impossible for any producers willing to work hard enough.
Unfortunately, few see the upside.
Skeptoid supporter Alan echoed thoughts that are very similar to my own on this question.
I feel our most rewarding avenue of pursuit must be the unwavering focus on producing entertainment of tremendous quality.
We can't endeavor to make a program with an outstanding representation of skepticism, but rather we must endeavor to make an outstanding program with a nominal representation of skepticism.
If the main course is bland, it won't matter how incredible the dessert was.
Let's become great entertainers and storytellers first before becoming great skeptics.
This still remains my best advice to people in media who want to engage the public to embrace skepticism.
First, think about creating something great that people love and want to watch.
And second, worry about inserting the secret payload of skeptical content.
So what exactly should that great watchable programming be?
Well, many of you who answered my question sent in ideas for TV series.
Here's one from Jack.
My suggestion would be a program in the close format of an old-fashioned mystery story or detective story.
Wonderful.
I think of Sherlock Holmes or Mulder and Scully from the X-Files.
Imagine the advantage a healthy scientific skepticism would confer upon such a character.
Supporter Justin also came up with a similar twist on a familiar format.
I was thinking of a children's mystery-solving cartoon show.
Consider it a modern-day version of Scooby-Doo, but more focused on debunking wild theories by exposing their foolishness.
Many of us in the Brotherhood consider Scooby-Doo to be in the all-time hall of fame for great skeptical programming.
So why not refresh the concept and broaden their scope to more than just ghosts?
Aaron suggested, I think that one type of ideas that people are often drawn to are those that appear as like revealed knowledge or somehow subversive or anti-establishment.
Here's the real story.
That's a great concept that's been used many times, but usually turns into a show promoting conspiracy theories.
But once we apply skepticism and discover that there is no conspiracy, such a show would probably get stale pretty quickly.
So we haven't found the angle on this one.
As I've mentioned in the past, at least a couple times a year, some production company will approach me about doing some TV series.
It usually goes as far as a screen test, at which point they discover that I am artless and ill-favored, and that's the end of it.
But the concept for the show is almost always the same.
They want a skeptic and a believer to go out and investigate mysteries together and argue.
Here are some similar proposals from you.
First, from David.
I'd recommend highly technically polished productions of scenarios to compare approaching situations by thinking skeptically versus thinking magically, superstitiously, or pseudoscientifically.
One might juxtapose the effects of prayer with helping people grow food or build a school.
Or we might track how two people address a fungal infection.
One would visit a physician for a diagnosis, prescriptions for pharmaceutical treatment, and resolution.
And the other would avail himself of acupuncture and herbal tea, thereafter to be consumed entirely by the fungus.
Okay, so the person using real science is going to win in every fair comparison, obviously.
Here's Corey's idea.
What about a web show where a skeptic would invite people to convince him or her of their various unscientific beliefs?
In return, they would allow the skeptic to convince them of the science.
And again, Steve's thought dramatically shows the difference between what happens when you base your decisions on good information compared to when you base them on woo.
I think you do it by contrasting success stories with failure stories.
The person who made the smart investment plan rather than going to their psychic, the person who chose scientific medicine over whatever snake oil was being peddled that month.
Now, I'm about as far from being a television insider as it's possible to get, though I have been battered about the edges a bit.
And what I learned in every pitch testing pseudo-scientific claims or comparing the findings of a skeptic to the findings of a believer was that the networks universally asked a single question.
The paranormal explanation will turn out to be the true one at least some of the time, right?
In a world that can feel overwhelming, spreading thoughtful, evidence-based content is one of the best ways to make a positive impact.
Ask your local public radio station to air the Skeptoid Files, a 30-minute radio-friendly version of Skeptoid that pairs two related episodes promoting real science, true history, and critical thinking.
And in these challenging times for public media, we're offering these broadcasts for free to radio stations, available on the PRX Exchange or directly from Skeptoid Media.
It's an easy ask.
Just send a quick message to your station's programming director.
By helping to bring the Skeptoid files to the airwaves, you'll help promote the essential skills we all need to tell fact from fiction.
Just go to your local station's website, find the programming director's email address, or just their general email address.
You can even use the telephone.
I know that might sound crazy.
It's an old legacy device that allows real-time voice communication.
I know that's weird, but hey, it's an option.
The world can feel chaotic, but you're not powerless.
When you promote critical thinking, you can help your community tell fact from fiction.
And that's how we shape a better future.
In uncertain times, spreading good ideas can make you feel helpful, not helpless.
Let's stand up for reason, truth, and understanding.
Together, get them to air the Skeptoid files from Skeptoid Media, available on the PRX Exchange, and they'll know what that is.
So while these TV series suggestions are good ones, they're probably not commercial ones.
Nobody wants to tune in to see hard work succeed and magic fail.
That's the harsh reality that viewers are using the TV to escape from.
The reality show format has an intrinsic need for sensational things to happen, thus making its name a bit of an oxymoron.
This makes it a poor breeding ground for skeptical science content and explains why mythbusters lasted only two or three seasons before devolving completely into a mere exhibition of explosions and truck crashes.
They don't want to see science trump pseudoscience.
They want whiz-bang sensationalism.
And so far, nobody has found a formula that marries the two.
If you want commercial success that produces real money, I'm afraid you will need subjects that are a lot more sensitive and controversial than the ones you're using.
That's Earl's opinion, and he's right.
Controversy always sells.
If we're to present skeptical content in such a way that people will fall over themselves trying to get it, be controversial, be edgy, maybe even a little offensive, get attention.
Sharon from Doubtful News adds, Unfortunately, characteristics which attract attention of the media and social sharing are the ones that are disdained by skeptics.
Things like sensationalism, appeals to emotion, fear-mongering, a figurehead personality, things like that.
Producers are going to continue to crank that stuff out.
In at least one case, skeptics and scientists have tried to make it easier for them to keep their information on track, as Max points out.
The scientific community established a hotline that writers and filmmakers can call to get actual scientific advice from scientists.
It's called the Science and Entertainment Exchange.
So yeah, funded by the National Academy of Sciences, the Science and Entertainment Exchange, quote, connects entertainment industry professionals with top scientists and engineers to create a synergy between accurate science and engaging storylines in both film and TV programming.
Too bad it doesn't get used as much as it should.
Why not?
Because the quality of science information in a show is not a factor in its popularity.
We still have to crack that nut.
Okay, one more TV idea and then we'll move on.
Wilco says, Somehow Deepok Chopra makes a killing selling woo on PBS.
Why not do a skeptic infomercial for PBS?
As we discussed in episode 503, those PBS infomercials are built around the sale of products, usually best-selling books.
And you're right, there's no reason best-selling skeptical authors shouldn't be knocking on the doors of the companies that produce those infomercials.
BJ offers a way that skeptical content can be welcomed into the workplace.
Businesses, particularly larger ones, seem to spend untold gobs of money on various programs of questionable scholarship, ostensibly designed to foster better teamwork and performance.
Perhaps this is an opportunity for skepticism.
I would like to see a program designed for businesses to make employees better thinkers, more conscious of their biases and how to overcome them, and generally improve business activities through clearer thinking and greater emphasis on teasing out actual knowledge from the mass of available information.
I'm actually starting to do this already.
I have one course that I present on questioning assumptions that counts for continuing professional education in several industries and is also great for any company.
It's a whole lot more fun than the regular junk professionals have to sit through to get their hours.
So come to skeptoid.com if you'd like me to come to your company or industry group.
Susan from Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia has another idea, sort of a way to trick the media into thinking that skepticism is already popular.
We need to support our skeptic projects, authors, podcasts, leave reviews wherever you can leave a review.
If we drive those numbers up on Amazon and iTunes, Hollywood will start paying attention.
Help these projects out with micropayments and Amazon donations.
It really does help.
Talk about it, wear it, share it, make some noise.
Let the media know we're here.
It's true.
I know for a fact that many of these media companies, when scouting for new content, do look at things like Twitter follower counts, iTunes review counts, number of Facebook likes.
There's good content here, and it can be delivered better if more people know about it.
Here's a really important thought from Skeptoid supporter Catherine, who aptly reminds us why cracking this nut is an important task that would benefit us all.
Adults need science ed too.
After all, they're the ones who vote or ought to and could make sure anti-science initiatives get pushed off ballots and into the black hole where they belong.
Science literacy and the ability to think critically and skeptically are undervalued.
I'll close with a quote from my film, Here Be Dragons.
The choice between pseudoscience and science is the choice between stagnation and progress.
Progress toward long life, health, happiness, a cleaner planet, bountiful food, knowledge, and peace.
Gotta love the music from Here Be Dragons.
And yes, the sequel is finally being produced.
It's called The Principles of Curiosity.
Look out for it.
Announcements are going to be coming to you pretty soon.
So, it's easy to participate in episodes like this one where I go out to the listeners and solicit your feedback.
All you have to do is become a Skeptoid member with your micropayments.
Come to skeptoid.com/slash important because your thoughts are important.
We just need to hear them.
You're listening to Skeptoid.
I'm Brian Dunning from skeptoid.com.
Hello, everyone.
This is Adrian Hill from Skookam Studios in Calgary, Canada.
the land of maple syrup and mousse.
And I'm here to ask you to consider becoming a premium member of Skeptoid for as little as five US dollars per month.
And that's only the cost of a couple of Tim Horton's double doubles.
And that's Canadian for coffee with double cream and sugar.
Why support Skeptoid?
If you are like me and don't like ads, but like extended versions of each episode, Premium is for you.
If you want to support a worthwhile nonprofit that combats pseudoscience, promotes critical thinking, and provides free access to teachers to use the podcast in the classroom via the Teacher's Toolkit, then sign up today.
The Cost of Critical Thinking 00:00:17
Remember that skepticism is the best medicine.
Next to giggling, of course.
Until next time, this is Adrienne Hill.
From PRX.
Export Selection