I am always interested in trying to understand what makes a scientific discovery/publication something that journalists (general media journalists as opposed to specialist popular science ones) excited – and also their editors excited enough to put it near the front of the publication. This has happened with the publication in Science (here is the open access newsy item in Science), which has been picked up by the press (BBC, Guardian, amongst many).
Dinosaurs, especially those red in tooth and claw are very popular with editors, probably because even editors went through that stage in their childhood where dinosaurs were big, amazing and interesting. In short, people empathise with dinosaurs, even T. Rex. As I discussed in an earlier post spiders, or at least their webs, also elicit interest and column inches. I suspect part of the interest in these stories is the confusion in the press between science and observation of nature/environment. This has a long history (at least for me) because I remember that what passed for science in my Junior School was timetabled as “Nature Study”. Editors are people too (hard to believe at times) so the coverage of these stories probably represents the current level of interest in Science. This can probably be simplified to the following categories, with examples:
- Really scary science: End of the world – LHC, H5N1 bird flu.
- Not really scary but we ought to look concerned – Global warming, H1N1 swine flu.
- Wow! – Anything to do with astronomy that has a good colour picture.
- Cute – Animal (preferably furry) behaviour insight.
- New dinosaur – see above.
- Bizarre – can be anything as long as scientist looks like cross between Albert Einstein and Professor Brainstawm.
Brian – I’m interested you say that people ‘empathise with dinosaurs’. My suspicion (no data, just suspicion) is that the dinosaur enthusiasm is young people is often linked to being somewhere on the autistic spectrum, a condition that is typified by lack of empathy. I know it was probably just a throw-away word, but is it really empathy dinosaur enthusiasts feel? (In which case, my suspicion is probably wrong!)
There’s also the ‘Why?’ science story. As in ‘boffins discover the formula for making the perfect cup of tea’ – or ‘scientists spend £5 million to prove that black is really white’.
I suppose this could be considered a sub-genre of your ‘bizarre’ category, but I think it’s distinct in that the aim is to show a perceived waste of time/money, as opposed to the sharing of something unusual from a straight-out bizarre story.
@Matt – Yes but those are really two different categories. The waste on money one is beloved in the USA, especially if the University is not in your state. The perfect equation is relatively new and is actually quite liked by editors/journalists or at least is often treated as whimsy.