This was an excellent and thought-provoking discussion. You both did a great job highlighting how the communication challenges in public health and meteorology overlap, especially around credibility, uncertainty, and the shift from traditional top-down messaging to a more relational, conversational style. I really appreciated the points about humility, tone, and the need to move away from the old “talking suit” model toward something more authentic and accessible.
At the same time, a few assumptions might merit a second look. The idea that authenticity always outperforms polish seems partly context dependent, since some audiences still read a degree of polish as reliability. Similarly, while credentials alone no longer guarantee trust, they still matter when competing claims arise, and the challenge is how to present expertise without sounding condescending. And although the democratization of communication has many benefits, it is also what allows misinformation to spread more easily, so some guardrails still matter.
Altogether, this was a nuanced and refreshing conversation. The parallels between hurricane forecasting and pandemic messaging were particularly insightful, since both fields wrestle with communicating uncertainty without eroding confidence.
This sounds like a millennial version of Science Under Siege by Peter Hotez and Michael Mann. Yes, public health and climate change face similar challenges from anti-science forces. Yes, we have to do a better job explaining science to the public. However, I'm not so sure that changing the tone and style of science communication will make much difference when the forces promoting anti-science are motivated by politics and greed instead of truth. I hope I'm wrong. I hope scientists like Kristen Panthagani and Matt Lanza can save us from anti-science even if old bommers like me could not.
It was an interesting discussion, not all of which I can agree with or even fully understand or relate to some of the points. As when I advise or recruit college students, the generational gaps between scientists require learning situations for us all to be aware of and recognize.
The conclusion reached that traditional media has lost the audience when trying to communicate scientifically based information is sound. But I don’t think it will be corrected by instead shifting to listening to folksy communicators on podcasts. Engagement isn’t of any value if accuracy is lost. The universe of podcasts is too large and its trustworthiness too uncertain to be a source of dependable verifiable information. The panelists admit the most engaging sources aren’t always accurate.
I doubt Enstien would have been a great communicator on internet media. But his insights and understanding was the basis for much of modern physics.
The best answer would be a third option where someone sees the business opportunity in providing the kind of accurate scientific information I get in several publications I receive but “digested”if you will into the most understandable language possible. We should also recognize a lot of important science is simply difficult to understand and there’s only so much simplification that can be done without losing accuracy.
This was an excellent and thought-provoking discussion. You both did a great job highlighting how the communication challenges in public health and meteorology overlap, especially around credibility, uncertainty, and the shift from traditional top-down messaging to a more relational, conversational style. I really appreciated the points about humility, tone, and the need to move away from the old “talking suit” model toward something more authentic and accessible.
At the same time, a few assumptions might merit a second look. The idea that authenticity always outperforms polish seems partly context dependent, since some audiences still read a degree of polish as reliability. Similarly, while credentials alone no longer guarantee trust, they still matter when competing claims arise, and the challenge is how to present expertise without sounding condescending. And although the democratization of communication has many benefits, it is also what allows misinformation to spread more easily, so some guardrails still matter.
Altogether, this was a nuanced and refreshing conversation. The parallels between hurricane forecasting and pandemic messaging were particularly insightful, since both fields wrestle with communicating uncertainty without eroding confidence.
This sounds like a millennial version of Science Under Siege by Peter Hotez and Michael Mann. Yes, public health and climate change face similar challenges from anti-science forces. Yes, we have to do a better job explaining science to the public. However, I'm not so sure that changing the tone and style of science communication will make much difference when the forces promoting anti-science are motivated by politics and greed instead of truth. I hope I'm wrong. I hope scientists like Kristen Panthagani and Matt Lanza can save us from anti-science even if old bommers like me could not.
It was an interesting discussion, not all of which I can agree with or even fully understand or relate to some of the points. As when I advise or recruit college students, the generational gaps between scientists require learning situations for us all to be aware of and recognize.
The conclusion reached that traditional media has lost the audience when trying to communicate scientifically based information is sound. But I don’t think it will be corrected by instead shifting to listening to folksy communicators on podcasts. Engagement isn’t of any value if accuracy is lost. The universe of podcasts is too large and its trustworthiness too uncertain to be a source of dependable verifiable information. The panelists admit the most engaging sources aren’t always accurate.
I doubt Enstien would have been a great communicator on internet media. But his insights and understanding was the basis for much of modern physics.
The best answer would be a third option where someone sees the business opportunity in providing the kind of accurate scientific information I get in several publications I receive but “digested”if you will into the most understandable language possible. We should also recognize a lot of important science is simply difficult to understand and there’s only so much simplification that can be done without losing accuracy.