Thanks for the link, Howard. Catalyst is or was a great show but it's
showing signs of turning into a different sort of programme. It would
be no surprise to see Maryanne Demasi fronting more infotainment style
soft science material on a commercial network.
It's true that 'these repeated transgressions suggest the real problem
is with the editorial structure of the program, rather than just
Demasi, which the ABC has acknowledged [1].' Surely the segment
producer should oversee not just the presentation style and selection
of talking heads, but the framing of a segment. It should be clear in
the first minute whether the 'register' of the piece is:
* Complex science news explained in lay terms (e.g. detection of
gravity waves or the Higgs field)
* Promising new research findings
* Two sides of current scientific controversy
* Outsiders challenge scientific orthodoxy
I think Demasi's sin in the two withdrawn pieces was in presenting an
'outsiders challenge scientific orthodoxy' piece but framing it as a
new research/scientific controversy segment as though she was
objectively presenting both sides and viewers could reasonably weigh
the arguments. Really it was cheerleading masquerading as journalism.
In a similar way we (TWs) need to be careful not to blur the line
between technical and marketing communication.
To answer your question, I've never felt pressure to overhype a
product's capabilities. I've been lucky to work on mostly impressive
products with, at worst, a bad UI.
Actual cases where a defect had to be written around in a tactful way:
* A 'wizard', supposedly developed to simplify installation options,
in which *all 5 or 6* of the default settings led to bad outcomes and
really needed to be overridden.
* Release notes in which bug fixes had to be described as 'stability
and performance improvements'.
--- Stuart
A couple of weeks ago, Howard said:
Today’s Guardian contains an interesting article about the
controversy surrounding Maryanne Demasi and her suspension from the
ABC’s _Catalyst_ program.
See
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/12/criticism-of-catalyst-misses-the-point-no-journalist-should-be-in-thrall-to-mainstream-opinion.
Though technical communicators aren’t at all like journalists, I
was struck by his remarks describing the blurring of the distinction
between science journalists and science PR people. He says that both
are often lumped under the term “scientific communicators”. This
reminds me that we seem to be having a similar blurring of the
distinction between technical communicators and the PR people who act
as “spin doctors” for companies and government departments and are
generally labelled just “communicators”.
I’d be interested to know if anyone here has felt under pressure to
produce “spin” material for their employers or clients, or even
just play down descriptions of areas where a product displays less
than optimal behaviour (a diplomatic euphemism meaning “doesn’t
work properly”).
...
I also remember occasions when working with software developers who
quietly admit that a certain feature didn’t work quite as well as it
should (again meaning “doesn’t work properly”) and ask me not to
say too much about them.
Of course, we are also sometimes asked to produce
marketing brochures describing products and these are bordering on
PR, but I’d be reluctant to do them if I thought the product was
shonky.
Regards
Howard
Links:
------
[1]
http://about.abc.net.au/statements/statement-from-director-of-television-on-catalyst-program-wi-fried-5-july-2016/
