My meeting with the woman from the Alumni Association went exceptionally well, not least because she was a great lady, we chatted away, about writings and everything else, and she surprised me by having a profound love for British comedies, she was even obsessed with The Mighty Boosh! But the meeting ended most satisfactorily; she asked me if I would be willing to write one piece for their newsletter every month, for $100-150 a piece! I tried not to sound too enthusiastic, but it was difficult. Not only does this give me great experience and provide me some great cv fodder, but it gives me more writing freedom. News writing can be so stuffy and formulated, and you just have to report. But for this I will write for the 'Researcher Spotlight' and 'Campus Corner' sections, basically exploring fun stuff about campus, and writing about it from a first person perspective and with a little more flare. I can't wait. My first piece we agreed would be to go back and talk to the amino acids researcher I interviewed for the student newspaper, and talk to him more about how he does science, and how the discovery was an 'accident'.
It seems, however, that there's some weird animosity between the student newspaper and the alumni association. The alumni lady said she chose to contact me on a total whim, because she was looking for a way to involve students, and my article stood out immediately from the others in the paper. It can be a little...juvenile sometimes, but it is a student paper. But it is why I tend to stay in the news section, the editors are much more down to Earth and professional. When I later went to the student paper to talk to them about the logistics of using material I collected for their articles, the editor-in-chief was, uh, pretty derisive about the alumni publication. Could be interesting !
Then, a little later on, I was handed a last-minute assignment from the student paper that someone else pulled out of: to cover the graduate physics association's first symposium. Despite it being their first year, they'd managed to attract a prestigious keynote speaker: renowned physicist and author Dr. Lawrence Krauss. I was to interview the organiser of the event, chat to some of the students and cover the talk. When I called up the organiser to arrange an interview with her, she enthusiastically offered me an interview spot with the man himself the next day. "Uh, sure, that would be great!" I squealed as I put the phone down, ran around the apartment excitedly, than began panicking. This guy is a big deal. I mean, a really big deal, especially to someone like me. The guy is an ambassador for science and reason, critical thinking, and fighting scientific ignorance. My interview skills are definitely not up to this.
I was sure I could think of questions to ask him, both to satisfy the newspaper and my own curiosities, but I wasn't sure how I could ask these questions. I always knew interviewing would be my weak point, and I felt I hadn't really had enough practice yet. See, I'm confident with what I write, but I'm terrible at speaking, I'm an awful mutterer and stutterer!
But I sucked it up (and took a sleeping pill to ensure a steady night's sleep), and prepared my questions to the point of writing them down precisely to minimize stutter. The first port of call was Dr. Krauss' book signing, so I could interview the organiser while she had 10 minutes to spare. She was a delightfully enthusiastic girl, telling me that she was motivated to hold the symposium to spread the joy of physics:
“We love physics; we are passionate about what we do. We don’t do it for the money because we don’t make any, we do it for the pleasure, and we would like to share this with everybody else.”
While I was there, I thought I should take the opportunity to get some books signed. I bought 'Fear of Physics', because, frankly, I've always wanted to know more about string theory and whatnot, but physics has always eluded me, so I thought this would be a good place to start. As I got my books signed I thought I'd try some ad-libbing. He asked me what I was studying, I told him Earth science. I forewarned Dr. Krauss that we'd be meeting again; that I'd be interviewing him later. He said he always liked being interviewed by someone with some scientific knowledge. I immediately blurted out that I was trying to break into the world of science journalism, and he was my first 'Big Deal'. He said he'd try and make it easier for the both of us then.
I smiled nervously. It was perhaps a bit foolish to admit how nervous I was, but it was not that bad, coming from my mumbling mouth.
His schedule was tough that day, so he and his entourage were late for the interview time, and he was obviously a little agitated. I promised to be as quick as possible so he could relax before the big talk. I fluttered. He asked for a moment to drink some water and encouraged me to do the same. I tried to calm myself, then I started the interview.
I asked him the 'student newspaper' things; why did he come to the symposium, was he looking forward to the student poster session, what advice did he have for students? Then I got down to business.
I asked him about the possibility of warp drive. Not with the laws of physics the way they are I'm afraid.
I asked him what he thought of Stephen Hawking's recent assertion (on Larry King Live) that science can explain the universe without the need for a creator, and whether he thought more influential figures like him should speak out. He said that it was nothing new, and that the problem is that anything Hawking says is taken as a 'pronouncement from God (if you'll forgive the pun)', but the problem is his statements are one-liners, that have the ability to provoke thought and conversation, but are not fully communicative.
I said, that at a venue like this, when he talks about non-science, for the majority he is probably preaching to the converted, so how does he go about reaching the people sitting on the fence?
He thought about it for a bit. Then he said he hoped to perhaps raise people's awareness, and provide them with the tools to use in their own discussions.
Lastly, I asked the big one, almost purely for me. How does the media improve its science reporting?
Journalists, he said, need to treat science reporting like they treat other reporting. Be diligent, and don't be afraid to do the research, and most importantly, don't be afraid to make pronouncements when they are warranted. For example, no (credible) scientist would refute the truth of evolution, but most newspapers still have trouble speaking about the subject without fearing of upsetting religious sensitivities.
And that was that. I flopped back to the student newspaper offices in a daze and waited for the deputy news editor to join me for the keynote address (a nice guy called Simon). We headed over and I got out my notebook and voice recorder again. The talk was engaging, more about the blurring of scientific truth, and how we should all find our inner scientist to help us fight the forces of ignorance.
Anyway. I'd like to post more about the talk and such, but er, it's late and my cognitive abilities are waning. I'll be sure to post a link to the article when it's published though, although it doesn't contain enough Krauss as I'd like. A missed opportunity by the paper in my opinion. But! Hopefully I'll meet him again, further in my career, when I'm not such a stutterer.
No comments:
Post a Comment