All Things

Astroprof’s Page has an interesting discussion of the difficulties of science journalism.

I think the quality of science coverage is improving at many of the major newspapers at least. As Astroprof mentions, Mark Carreau has, for example, done a good job for the Houston Chronicle. Perhaps it’s a positive outcome from the Challenger tragedy, but it seems that about that time many of the media outlets here in Houston started giving a lot more attention to manned spaceflight. The “main” industries in Houston have long been oil & gas and real estate, but for quite a few years now space has also been accorded that sort of status by the Chronicle and several of the TV and radio stations.

An experienced, knowledgeable science reporter is hard to replace. I subscribed to Science News for years, but after Dietrick Thomsen and Jonathan Eberhart left, the physics and space coverage were just not the same. I doubt most publishers have the means to get into a bidding war for the limited supply of top talent, and no one could expect a relatively new science journalist to be able to match their reporting.

One of the problems with science and tech journalism is that folks in these fields often expect journalists to do all the work. Such a mindset would seem ridiculous in politics, where there’s whole staffs of hacks feeding carefully-crafted sound bites to the media and identifying “talking points” for their candidate’s every appearance.

Businesses likewise spend vast amounts on marketing and public relations, but most researchers, and even technical staff inside many businesses, somehow don’t seem to think these functions are part of their job. Of course, a lot of engineers, scientists and programmers aren’t that good at communications skills, or just plain don’t like to talk about themselves, but somebody in these research groups and engineering departments needs to take up the role of communicator, so the outside world can understand the value and needs of their efforts.

Journalists are under a lot of pressure with the kind of deadlines that most of us couldn’t even imagine, so it’s only smart to realize they’re going to need some help. That’s one of the things I’m trying to do with some of my sites, particularly AeroGo (for aerospace and engineering education) and RealCurrents (for current events), in which I’m trying to provide important but little-known background information and to point out things deserving more attention (which I generally categorize with the tag “Press Coverage Holes”).

Where there are failings in science/tech journalism, beyond just ignorantly trying to cover a field the reporter knows nothing about, I’d say that one of the biggest problems is that of naively swallowing pronouncements from big research groups without knowing what is going on elsewhere. We saw some of that a few years ago, for example, with some coverage of the Human Genome Project, that focussed too much on the government research, ignoring Celera Genomics’ private effort that ended up getting done first.

The result is that journalists are often lacking in understanding about the overall policy and business aspects of research, and consequently end up focussing too critically on superficial technical aspects. We saw that just this past week, when many media outlets were talking about the possible abandoning of the International Space Station, due to computer problems - what was a rather remote possibility, technically, while saying not a word about how NASA’s busily going about building a station they expect to abandon anyway, not too many years after completing it.

It seems to me that journalists ought to be a little easier on programs that suffer technical glitches that are really just part of the normal course of research & development, but be discerning enough to realize when an effort has really lost its way or when a policy has serious unresolved issues. With so much needless technical criticism, a lot of R&D managers are understandably gun-shy about the press, which just perpetuates the disconnect to journalists described above.

“It has to be about the experience, not just the rides.” - Mark Shapiro, new CEO, Six Flags Inc.

Though on a much smaller scale, it was one of those moments like the Challenger accident that jolt you, imprinting in your memory where you were and what you were doing when you heard the news. In my case, I was with my son last September, on our way to seeing the Astros play the Florida Marlins, when the report came over the radio. Six Flags Astroworld was going to be shut down and the land sold for redevelopment.

Now real estate development and redevelopment has long been, together with the energy industry, the lifeblood of the Houston economy, but this time it didn’t seem like good news. I was about 5 years old when the park first opened, and as a child I loved it. Perhaps even more than the rides, I was fascinated by the original world theme of Astroworld, where it was divided into sections resembling the American west, the Orient, the Alps, an old-style main street, etc.

Before the park became crowded with rides, there was a sizable “lagoon” that helped to divide the areas, but unlike EPCOT’s simple circular layout with a lake in the middle, the sections had been carefully designed (as at Disneyland, etc.) to hide much of the other parts and transition seamlessly so you felt more like you were immersed in a single section at a time (this was much easier before the rides got so much bigger).

In essence, the theme park design allowed a visitor (especially a small child who was likely to be overwhelmed with all the inputs) to feel like they were in a certain place in the world, and then a few minutes later to experience a whole different environment (except for the humidity). My favorite ride was an alpine sleigh ride, a mild roller-coaster type experience that went through a sizable manmade mountain which was very cold. Besides impacting even temperature and humidity, the ride gave a child a trip to the mountains, something far outside the Houston experience (Colorado has become something of a Texas colony for this reason).

After a decade or so, the world theme design began to break down. A new roller coaster was built and a large arcade area put in, which perhaps generated a lot of revenue but really didn’t fit (and was pretty tacky). Every year a new ride would be built to use as a selling point to draw people back, and so the lagoon and other open spaces were used up, and the mountain was torn out as well (I suspect the sleigh ride was a considerable maintenance hassle). The park became increasingly crowded with rides and people (since there was less open space) and over the years basically transitioned from a theme park to an amusement park.

Nevertheless, a trip to Astroworld could still be a lot of fun, and with the many fairly new rides and crowds, I think most people were surprised that it closed. As far as I could tell, there wasn’t any warning, and I wonder why city leaders (apparently) didn’t make much effort to hold on to it (to be fair, the news came just weeks after Katrina, and they certainly had their hands - and the Astrodome - full). I was glad I’d taken our large family the year before, the only time we all went together.

Well, I’m still upset that Astroworld has closed, but at least now, thanks to Business Week, I know who to blame. But maybe all will be forgiven if new Chairman Dan Snyder and new CEO Mark Shapiro (from ESPN) do what the article says they’re setting out to do. Rather than focussing just on the rides, they seem to realize the need to emphasize the experience. In other words, theme parks, not simply amusement parks.

One would think the chance to remake dozens of parks would be more exciting than running a sports network or the Washington Redskins (Snyder’s other business). Each park is its own little world, and building and exploring worlds are activities that fascinate a lot of people (see the cover story for the May 1st BW for more on that).

Considering the following three points, I can’t help but wonder if the problem with parks today is that, like Astroworld, they’ve morphed from Walt Disney’s vision of theme parks into simple amusement parks:

1. Customer experience management has become all the rage in marketing. Customers today are buying an experience, not just a product or service.
2. People are overworked and overstressed. When they get a chance to take a break, they are going to want to be in a whole different place doing something totally different than their normal routine, but without a lot of hassles.
3. Fuel and travel costs are up, and many are likely to stay closer to home on their vacations, and these breaks are tending to be shorter but more frequent. Relatively few Americans routinely take long vacations nowadays.

With all this in mind, it would seem that there would be a business opportunity for theme parks catering to folks needing a simple way to take a break and spend time with their family. I hope the folks at Six Flags actually do invest more in the experience and less on giant roller coasters.

A lot more effort needs to be put into design and creativity, and the hassles need to be ironed out and guests given things to do besides just standing in long lines for big attractions. Parks need to be fun, relaxing places for adults and places of wonder for kids.

And by the way, Messrs. Snyder and Shapiro, if you do work out a good formula for a modern theme park, it would be nice of you to try it out here in the Houston area.

I’ve written about the Astros and my own thoughts about baseball over the years, including the 90s when I was really turned off by the second strike, etc., on my personal blog, Light Side.

Susan and I recently took a trip to New Braunfels, San Antonio, and the Canyon Lake area of central Texas, which I wrote about on my personal blog, Light Side.