Today I will write on the three radio spots that we were provided with to be analyzed for our weekly graduate seminar. All of them came from National Public Radio (NPR) program called Science Friday.
The first radio spot was “Non-embryonic stem cells have more DNA damage” (http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201103046) by the biologist Sean Morrison. I believe that this was my favorite and best interview based on how Sean presented the topic, answered the questions from the NPR interviewer and from a live call from the radio audience, and his passion and contagious interest for delivering his message. He used a combination of technical terms, simple English and an analogy to explain his ideas and clarify some points with common important examples related to human health. Even the NPR interviewer noticed Sean’s increasing enthusiasm over the live interview. Sean’s objectivity, scientific approach and conciseness in speech was notable by being very careful in his statements and firmly backing up his ideas during this brief participation.
The second radio spot was “Plastics: most plastics leach hormone-like chemical (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals) by George Bitnner. In this case the interviewer took the lead during most of the time. This presentation sounded more like a lecture than a real live interview. Although informative, clear, and organized, it did not fulfill my expectations of a good radio interview on scientific matters.
The third radio spot was “Ice: cracking the cool science of ice (http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201102114) by Investigator Eugene Stanley (Physicist) and Mariana Gosnell (writer). This was the case that I dislike the most. In this case the interviewer interrupted the talkative Eugene in a rude way. The tone used in the participants’ voice was very monotonous and seemed lack of enthusiasm for communicating their awesome topic. In addition to the monotonous way of talking by the interviewing the participants, it was too long to keep me in track of the topic. Even though it was informative and interesting, but also it leaves basic doubts among the audience. For example they never clarified for the audience why they consider, or not, ice as a mineral. Eugene used lots of jargon and even he tried to explain it in simple words he usually forgot who he was talking to.
These radio information capsules were very illustrative about how to tackle this kind of event. But the only way we can really appreciate and hone our skills in this matter is by simply having some live interviews ourselves. I have no doubt about enhancing the relevance of the paper “Fine-tune for radio and television” that we were given to read on what are key points to keep in mind for having a good radio interview: (1) use simple language, (2) paint visual pictures (i.e., describe vividly and richly your story), (3) use metaphors and analogies, (4) include personal anecdotes, and (6) speak with energy and emotion. Reading this well-written, complete and concise material in combination with the radio spots were a good complementary exercise. Further, some of these points have been analyzed over and over during our weekly seminar in communicating effective science to the public which should be useful and put in practice in our near future to assess our learning process.
No comments:
Post a Comment