'Wired Science': PBS aims young
On this week's premiere episode of “Wired Science,” Adam Rogers considers the humble chemistry set. Once found in millions of American kids' homes, these kits, with their tiny glass bottles filled with surprisingly dangerous potions, are now mostly found in landfills, on eBay and in museums. Rogers, a reporter for Wired magazine, says that among scientists he's talked to, “many see a correlation between the demise of those old chemistry sets and waning interest in science among America's students.”
Interest in science may indeed be down from the Sputnik era, but it seems to be climbing among the viewers of public television. Joining “Nova” and “Nature” on the PBS lineup this week, “Wired Science” is a wholly successful adaptation of the leading print magazine of new technology. It's fast-paced, yet substantial; serious, yet with a light touch.
'Wired Science'
8 p.m. Wednesday on KCPT and 7 p.m. on KTWU
While the commercial TV networks are airing new shows like “Chuck” and “Big Bang Theory” that both celebrate and make fun of geeks, “Wired Science” operates from the novel idea that people involved in science and technology are neither cool nor uncool. They just are. And since they're responsible for a lot more than inventing cures for cancer and ED, it's time we got to know them better.
You may have seen the pilot for this show last winter. (In hindsight, it's most notable for the scenes filmed with meteorite hunters in and around Greensburg, Kan., which would later be flattened by a tornado.) “Wired Science” was one of several concepts that PBS and its money source, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, created in their lab as part of an initiative to boost science programming on PBS. When I was in Los Angeles this summer, executives at Wired and KCET, the public TV station there that's co-producing “Wired Science,” described to me their fledgling TV show as “an experiment,” an apt choice of words.
To PBS diehards, “Wired Science” may take some getting used to. Seven stories are packed into less than an hour, punctuated with whooshy sound effects and flashy little visual transitions that would go unnoticed on any other network. I was concerned about the potential for drive-by journalism on “Wired Science,” so I was encouraged by the balance and restraint shown in the night's first story. It was Wired correspondent Joshua Davis' report on the Russian hackers who conducted a series of brazen attacks on Internet providers in the former Soviet republic of Estonia. Orchestrated and widespread, the attacks disrupted nearly every aspect of life in Estonia, one of the world's most wired countries. Officials there believe they were politically motivated. “Intercontinental ballistic missiles used to roll through Red Square,” Davis says. “But now the armaments are less obvious.”
But Davis balances this with reporting that shows Estonian anti-hackers were up to the challenge. Indeed, this part of the story got better treatment, it seemed to me, than in the print version of Wired. And the TV report did a better job telling viewers of the implications of the Estonian attack for the U.S. “We have, unfortunately, not invested in defense,” is how one American Internet security expert puts it.
When the magazine decided to send Davis off in pursuit of the story, the producers of the TV show decided it was time for a field test. “We lent him one of our cameras and wished him good luck,” said show consultant David Axelrod. “He came back with both a Wired story and a 'Wired Science' story. And the camera's still in one piece.”
Other stories on Wednesday's premiere include an interview with author Paul Kedrosky, whose specialty is venture capital and technology (a favorite subject of Wired readers), and a look at a mind-blowing new computer program that can organize thousands of image files on a single screen. The show is shot in high-definition, which makes “Wired Science” unusual among news magazines. But what else would you expect from something this high-tech?
