Add a Comment
Save my information
Completely agree on the improvement in the message transmission when emotion is involved.
Is it the found difference due to the satiric way the content in delivered? or to the charisma of the comedians?
Most of these comedians have charisma, thus the jokes and content are very welcome by the layman, on the other hand, science communication is often perceived as boring, not because of the content, but the way is presented by the host.
Moving right along from satire in science to satire i performance poetry — Our dilemma is so dire it calls for far more than just one more planet. What do we need? 4More Planets! When do we want them? Now! http://youtu.be/BiswXRIK80k
Whatever be the effect of such presentations on the audience present and listening, at the end of the day what will count in real terms will be
the degree of success achieved putting in place the remedial measure by the powers that be in actualizing the desired improvements to our environment to render it livable for all-man, flora and fauna , et al.
Bottomline: This innovative way of interaction to address humanity’s concern for climate improvement shouldn’t stop with just providing a lighter and enjoyable moment of elocutions but end up in perceivable actions taken on the ground by those that are charged with the responsibility under the governance system throughout.
So call your congressperson today and demand they repeal the oppressive Laws of Thermodynamics !
Of course satire is more readily received by the public, because they are more interested in entertainment than in real news. Satiric science news is like infotainment, so it captures the attention. It engages not only the mind but also the emotions, so it has more impact, and even more so if it also inspires some physical response, such as laughing and gesticulating or knee slapping. This would all also be more likely to inspire a person to share the piece with others by telling them about it, or at least sharing on social media.
Getting a good response from people does not, however, mean that they’ve also gained a significant factual understanding from a presentation. It might very well only lead to a superficial impression of understanding which can then quickly result in a strongly held opinion, whether correct or incorrect, depending upon the quality and intent of the presentation, including its factual truthfulness. Satirical presentations intended to misinform and to manipulate impressions and opinions are probably easier to pull off than serious presentations that seem professional.
I’ll suggest that satire might best be used in verbal presentations, perhaps accompanied by slides with satirical cartoons, where it could be used as comic relief to lighten the mood in long, otherwise dry presentations. In such a situation, intonation and body language can also be used to help convey the intended message, and the presenter could also respond to the audience reactions in order to correct miss-impressions. But it should be kept to a minimum so as not to detract from the factual presentation and definitely so it doesn’t steal the show.