People like the web. It’s a new medium that is instantaneous, offers interactivity and ability to access content on different levels of detail and the user can check facts.

The new tools allow the “omygawd” factor, according to Richard Black from BBCNews.com, to become a way to share news.

The “omygawd” or “wow” factor isn’t enough. It just gives attention to stories that mainstream media overlooks or doesn’t place enough emphasis. It is up to the audience who are Googling or Digging for stories that decide what news needs emphasis and what their friends should look up. People like curious and quirky stories. But with the web, even a quirky story allows the user to drill down the feature jumping around from article to blog to a video presentation. It allows users control over how much detail they see.

This is the DIY generation. The generation that made Web 2.0 what it is. It’s social networking that allows the user to send things to friends and Black argues that “the more we personalize, the more we take away.”

Anne Casselman from inklingmagazine.com agrees with Black that what articles are popular in the larger web community push people towards inklingmagazine. People like interaction and contests, but they also like “the word of mouth.” Web 2.0 to Casselman gives more opportunity for dialogue. It gives science dialogue.

Unfortunately, this creates an issue of filtering media stories through the people who use the web. It’s stories with the fun headlines or odd topics that will get the most hits on Digg and if this is the answer of how to attract an audience who is not into popular science to read about science, maybe we are using the web for the wrong reasons.

Essentially, it’s all about toning down this enthusiasm about everyone having access to knowledge and information and sharing it with their friends.

François Heinderyckx, from the department of Information and Communication Science at the Université Libre de Bruxelles, argues that in the age of the web we are creating a “shapeless shamble.” Web promises speed, but speed leads to haste and haste can lead to manipulation. Validation is still needed, but validation is not what it used to be. “Validation is now based on popularity,” said Heinderyckx.

Instead of finding information or being exposed to new ideas, the web is doing the opposite: It is combining people into communities that validate their own ideas. It’s quite depressing to think that people will read the funny, outrageous or spectacular stories. “People are having fun,” said Heinderyckx. “They are not trying to give humanity knowledge to live better.”

The “omygawd” factor may be detrimental to science, but the internet isn’t dumbing down the science. It is giving the wide audience information in various formats that will be applicable to everyone. What’s key is teaching the facts and they will be filtered. After all, it’s the internet.

Professor Alfred Hermida in his talk at the Wedgewood Hotel in Vancouver last night addressed how to make science relevant in a digital age.

We know the web allows new tools, innovative ways to tell a story and now science is tapping into this relatively new medium to tell difficult stories that would otherwise be weighed down with facts and figures.

Professor Hermida illustrated his talk with an online project of leatherback turtles: one studied at the University of British Columbia and the other in the south Pacific.

He wanted to make a point that science matters. This story needs to be told, but instead of a five-page spread in the newspaper with sidebars, charts and lots of text, online offers new ways to engage with the public. It is there for scientists and journalists to improve their reporting.

But are we sacrificing information for visuals? Professor Hermida would argue against that. The information is there. The articles are well researched and most current data is used. It just allows the audience to read as much or as little as they want. After all, our generation doesn’t have much time to read a five-page feature.

How do you improve science journalism? It must begin with knowing who your audience is, but also know that not everyone wants simple information, basic language or fun games.

This brings us to another aspect of our culture: we are a gaming generation. A game will catch our attention and what better way to learn about migrating turtles than to place them in a game. Interaction taken to a new level. Along the way, we learn facts about their behaviour and how their migration is going. What they are eating, how they are interacting.

This is great, but who is this really targeting? Is this new tool forgetting about the older generation who doesn’t spend hours on the net? Sure, it will teach and reach a younger audience, but it might be insulting to someone who would much rather read a research paper or a very intensive feature article.

Plus or minuses indeed, but if science is to reach the masses, maybe taking advantage of online is one way to do it.

Vancouver Sun: Project sheds light on rare turtles

The Great Turtle Race

BBC News website: Energy calculator

New York Times: Journeys to distant fields of prime

NOAA in Second Life

A PDF of the talk is available for download here.

François Heinderyckx, professor at Université Libre de Bruxelles in the Department of information and communication sciences gave a talk today at UBC Institute of European Studies addressing the issue of modeled contemporary programs and how they are creating new trends that are specific to European media.

There’s a lot of familiarity with European programming. TV media takes very little risks and won’t try anything that isn’t successful. There are remakes of Deal or no Deal or Who Wants to be a Millionaire, but even in this new setting, there’s something that stands out from the already tested programs with the North American audience. There’s the local component.

Professor Heinderyckx links this question to one of: What is the core of the European identity? His response is that is it shared and different from each other. You cannot consider media without audience and what makes Europe stand out is the diversity of nations and audience behaviour. Each country has its own traditions, daily press and legal frameworks and that’s why Europe isn’t ready for a global media, instead the market is regional and local. It gives a sense of sharing and belonging together.

After all, media plays on shared experience and if a network or a newspaper can bring the local information to a sizable audience, it gives them a sense of awareness in their own community.

It bottles down to the fundamental approach of consumption of the media. Each region (northern, southern, eastern) or country (Croatia, Sweden, Turkey) consumes media in a different way and in ranging amounts. According to Heinderyckx, the daily television viewing time in Europe is 3 hours and 45 minutes. In the United States that number is 5 hours. But even in Europe, there are differences between each country. In Sweden, that number is only 2 hours and 30 minutes while in Croatia almost 5 hours.

And it’s not only North American media that is struggling to gain trust from the audience. In Europe, the most trusted media is radio with 63%. “The medium without pictures is the most trusted,” said Heinderyckx. Does that mean that the audience is tired of being fed imagery? Is the radio more reassuring that we live in a safer place if we can’t see the visual with the story?

This brings us to the internet and citizen journalism. More people are turning to the internet and even finding information on stories that the corporate media won’t pick up (this includes cell phone photos or videos). Yet, what is happening is that media is going from broadcasting to narrowcasting. It is targeting a very specific audience. After all, isn’t that what the internet does? Online tools allow us to find arguments that will enforce our own beliefs. We are a knowledge society and whether we trust the local TV station or newspaper or the internet, news will be consumed, because as Heinderyckx put it, “The more you know about the other, the more you fear the other.”

Here’s the abstract of the talk:

The way audiences are getting news and information about science is changing, with the Internet emerging as a key resource. The challenge is how to revitalize science journalism for a digital age. The web can offer new ways of engaging with audiences by capitalising on the interactive and participatory attributes of the Internet to convey the wonder of science.

The event takes place at the Wedgewood Hotel in downtown Vancouver. Light refreshments will be served.