As promised, second part of the conference.
4. Martin Vällik from Skeptik.ee, a website that comments bad articles about science (I recommend). He made a point that even women’s magazines are scientific with theyr health related articles. He said that people tend to see science as a hoppy of marginal freaks. But it is a process and way of thinking. “Science deals with existential questions, it is part of culture just like music, sports, etc“. He suggested a coulmn in Guardian.co.uk – Bad science. He specificly talked about an article “A wiggle in her walk? That’s what Veet likes”. How one “scientific” result was actually a promotional campaign but became completely different.
5. Julian Lopez Gomez, Euronews. To get air-time in Euronews, your story has to: 1. Inform, 2. Educate, 3. Entertain (in this order – that is theyr goal with the broadcasts). Your story has to: 1. happen NOW in Europe, 2. has to be VISUAL, 3. it has to have implication for people – how it is practical for regular person? (I will try to get a new project Taste of Europe-9 museum’s cooperation, into Euronews, lets see if it works). An interesting fact was that no journalist is shown during Euronews programmes, only before and after, to show that they have really made them.
6.Tiina Kangro. What I liked about her is her passionate way of talking about the way science media has worked and works now in Estonia. She mentioned, that Estonian science-media is based on enthusiastic people and the productionprocess is too expencive.
7. A link: a new project funding is possible for Estonians now: TeaMe, www.archimedes.ee/teadpop.
Have a good Sunday, I am off to Raadi manor