Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
There is nobody in Britain who does not know who Sir David Attenborough is.
I can sort of see that it could be a problem when reporting on a serious issue. I mean - imagine if it sank? Poe-faced news reporters having to report the tragic deaths of people on board Boaty McBoatface. There is also the danger that, whilst drawing public attention, it may not draw it the right way - as in, nobody would be listening to the sciencey part of the report - they'd just be chuckling at Boaty McBoatface.
I still think they should have gone with it.
|
I meant Who is DA in the sense that if you didn't know who he was, it's just a name and carried no meaning for those people. But everyone will engage with Boaty McBoatface. As for chuckling at him and not digging the science, I think even if people aren't going to go hook, line, and sinker for it, at least it will start showing up on their radar. And as the Jesuits have observed it is far easier to teach indirectly than directly.
And your example of "What if it sank?" seems a bit like the
appeal to emotion fallacy. Basing a decision on the possibility of a negative outcome, would halt the decision making.
It would help to make science more fun and accessible, rather than formal and imposing with Attenborough's voice in the backs of our heads intoning how whatever-the-thing is the most, the largest, the oldest, the deadliest, the [insert superlative here] on the planet.
Just count me as disappointed we won't have a Thomas the Tank Engine polar ambassador.
