csi and science
And so we come to CSI. I have to confess that I'm fascinated by this show: each episode is basically the same, with different dead bodies, but I can't get enough of it. But it's not just the thrill of seeing if I can catch on to who the murderer is, or the cheesey puns (and terrible dialogue), or the innovative (when the show first started) SFX: I also think there's a great research project (or analytical essay) in the making in there. If all we knew about science came from the programme, what would we think? Well, that science provides certainty and truth, for a start. That 'evidence' never lies. And that all labs are incredibly shiny, clean and high-tech and all scientists incredibly good-looking.
I also think it's interesting that, for all the cutting-edge science and edgy camerawork, the show is basically conservative in the values it chooses to emphasise and extremely limited in the voices, people and situations it showcases. I feel like a lot of issues are reduced to black and white in it - including the 'messiness' of science; that human factor which we talked about the other day.
But then, I'm not basing this on anything but vague impressions. I would love to see someone do some proper analysis. For now, other thoughts or comments on the show?
5 comments:
Personally I agree with you; I love CSI. Although I find it worrying when I hear reports of American juries assuming everything they watch is true & that forensics is simply that black and white. Maybe that is the fault of the audience rather than the programme?
there was some stuff on this on the Scientific American podcast recently - I think it wass based on a newsstory about judges in the states getting special science education (?? can't remember).
Remember "fiction" isn't a singular area though - e.g. there is a difference between Casulty (which is used to highlight government health campaigns) and ER.
That's fascinating about Casualty; I never knew that (although there was always a rather 'worthy' feel to it). I haven't seen it for ages (is Charlie still in it?) but maybe we should watch an episode in our class on public health campaigns!
did you miss the Robbie Winston organ donation one? It was hilarious!
The Archers was *designed* as a way of disseminating information about agricultural policy and R&D developments. Other companys have copied this model (one in Africa, Eastern Europe) even if now it's more about the soap element in the UK. The UK one still has an agricultural consultant, who acts in part not make it realistic (but, like in casulty) to give "useful" information and discussion.
The BBC's always been pretty didactic.
We'll cover some of this in the fiction class at the end of term.
Whoops - the above comment should read that the agricultural consultant acts to make it realistic, don't know how that "not" got in.
this story about postive role models in Eastenders proves my point. They've had characters not reading in Brookside and Eastenders to link to literacy campaigns. And the diabetes story in Corrie was linked to public information campaigns too.
Post a Comment