Enter World: exploring mediated cultures

Monday, May 14, 2007

Thoughts on Everything Bad is Good for You

Everything Bad is Good for You, by Steven Johnson

Overall the concept is a breath of fresh air, someone finally looked at media impact from a new angle.

As one example, he discusses TV shows with complex narratives and social webs that encourage audience interaction with the stories. Johnson points to cognitive challenges in modern dramas, and states that the good ones don’t “talk down” to audiences (referring both to the removal of blatant hints and the inclusion of technical jargon). However, he also refers to some of this language as above the audience when he discusses the “willingness to immerse the audience in information that most viewers won’t understand” (p.80). It is precisely this information that interests me. While Johnson covers social and technical skills honed by complex media environments, he overlooks the potential for learning specific information. That was an intentional separation for the purpose of this book, but something I’d like to see explored further in relation to the concepts Johnson presents.

These same shows that subject the audience to new information could be aiding the audience in understanding professional and academic fields as well as in developing their cognitive skills. All of the major networks seem to have more shows with problem solving by professionals or academics than sitcoms. Forensics, forensic anthropology, psychology, medicine, mathematics ... these are all fields that have played the background role of nerd or geek in past shows and are now the key roles. (Excepting computer science, which seems to still be represented by an off-beat character kept within the confines of the office to solve those truly complex technical issues.) By following these characters as they solve complex puzzles, the audience is introduced to the scientific process as well as specific terminology.

I read a wire story a while back that said Americans are more science literate now than ever before. It accredited improved understanding to the requirement of basic science classes in universities. But I would argue that the interest in science, and the willingness to read science news, also lies in the popularization of these fields through characters in television shows and the transformation of research from rigorous academic reading into hip, colorful, and fun formats such as Wired, Seed, and boingboing. Science information has become more accessible to the public through these popular media formats. And while hearing fictional doctors spout out medical terminology on TV is no substitute for studying anatomy or pharmacology, it does open interest in the field and make more people comfortable with the jargon.

Maybe Johnson’s assumption that it’s all in the way we think still holds true: it’s not so much which words the audience remembers or that they will be able to mimic the actions presented, but that they can wrap their minds around it and find it interesting. Just don’t throw out the message completely.