There isn’t a shortage of engineering-related TV shows, but do they represent the breadth of the discipline? Not so for 61 per cent of those who took part in our poll, which asked if factual TV gives a good representation of the engineering profession.
TV shows such as Megastructures, Impossible Engineering, How its Made and Mega Builders have brought certain – often challenging – elements of the profession into people’s homes, but overall, 27 per cent of Engineer readers believe factual TV is contributing to a poor view of engineering. Only seven per cent of respondents agreed that engineering coverage is informative and accurate, with five per cent opting for ‘none of the above’.
In the debate that followed, Pete D said: “I find most of the programmes superficial but then that’s because we are already interested in the subjects and will often have some/a lot of knowledge about them. However, most people have no interest in the depths of these subjects – and why should we expect them to? Yes, I would like more interesting (to me) programmes, but that’s unlikely on the “popular” channels.”
“Most of the stuff I see on the BBC is dumbed-down to the point of being counter-productive,” added Mohammed Abdullah. “It is high-quality production with low-information content. Evidently, the self-important celebrity scientists on the BBC have a very low opinion of viewers. There is also far too much time spent discussing personalities rather than ideas. Historical context is important for understanding how an idea was developed, but the personalities of scientists is not. There is lots of good stuff on Youtube. In particular, for physics, PBS Space Time and Fermilab are excellent.”
YouTube received an endorsement from Jordan also, who said: “Mediums like YouTube have also raised the bar for science communication. With informational dense but accessible channels like PBS Spacetime & Eons & Crash Course.”
Do you relax watching TV shows such as How do they do it? Or does coverage of engineering leave you with a sense of disappointment? The conversation is still alive so let us know your thoughts in Comments below. Readers should familiarise themselves with our guidelines for the content of comments before submitting, and all comments are moderated before publication.
>So are we in a golden age of STEM broadcasting
Yes, but not because of any of the main TV channels. Most of the stuff I see on the BBC is dumbed-down to the point of being counter-productive. It is high-quality production with low-information content. Evidently, the self-important celebrity scientists on the BBC have a very low opinion of viewers . There is also far too much time spent discussing personalities rather than ideas. Historical context is important for understanding how an idea was developed, but the personalities of scientists is not.
There is lots of good stuff on Youtube. In particular, for physics, PBS Space Time and Fermilab are excellent.
People don’t realise that everything they touch has been engineered, even toys.
When I was at school you could building bricks similar to Lego from many different companies. Lego were the most expensive but they worked the best, because they were designed (engineered) to be better, so they prevailed. At that time a lot of toys were just “thrown together” by manufactures with little design skill and they fell apart quickly.
Now when I look at toys, I marvel at the engineering effort that has gone into them to make them much better than the toys I had.
I quite like Rob Balls programmes on C4.
Having said that, Media companies are good at presentation, good at getting advertisers etc and are probably not engineers at all. Quite a different approach from an engineer who works with facts, proofs and validations.
TV is all about entertainment. It could be used to educate but would not be particularly entertaining so advertisers would not see much benefit. Leave it to the BBC and stop hounding them about the licence fee!
More detail is required in these programmes. The lack of same is always disappointing. More of an issue is the presentation and editing. The constant loud and unnecessary background music along with jump cuts to illustrate a point is a huge turn off. I wrote to Jim AK re one of his programmes where you could hardly hear his dialogue over the pesky music. I have asked the question many times, do we have anyone who can actually tell a story without introducing this techno junk?
Agree with Mr Abdullah. I’m old enough to have watched the original, and the coverage was excruciating. Burke frenetically hyperventilating away made my Dad turn the sound down. At the time I was working on the same visual system as used by the LEM simulator, and to some small extent had an ‘inside track’ . I had hoped they would cover some of the engineering issues involved in the Apollo programme, but no. Today is the same, so maybe the joys of engineering really are too subtle for MSM telly.
Dare I say it but it is not an art that can be ‘hyped’ … no matter how hard today’s Engineering Institutions try to ‘sell’ it.
The 50th anniversary of the moon landing was, indeed, a good example of where changes are needed. The engineering decisions and their execution are fascinating and would enthral potential engineers. The astronauts were simply machine operators (they referred to themselves as ‘Spam in a can’) chosen for their coolness under pressure and good control of machinery. Their lives – particularly after the landings – are fascinating and tainted by having celebrity thrust upon them when in their view they were just doing their job. It would make a somewhat salutary documentary in its own right, but plays little or no part in the history of the moon landings.
Similarly, the scientists and engineers behind the project could fill another, more worthwhile documentary. I see the imperative behind ‘dumbing down’ but suspect that those for whom it is dumbed will not be watching anyway. I don’t believe that engineering qualifications are essential for the presenters, but a thorough understanding of the technology and enthusiasm most definitely is.
There are not enough engineers involved in TV. Some years ago in industry the Royal Academy of Engineering ran “Media Fellowship” competitions for rising young engineer stars. We had several winners. They were so good in the role that the media (BBC etc) wanted to keep them. But they were smart enough to recognise that TV was not the best route to a high-flying engineering careers in Industry. The RAE would be most willing to help.
Stuart Nathan must have been using a 1974-issue Sinclair Scientific calculator to think that “None of us are old enough to remember the original coverage”….
I’m still working in engineering and despite my advancing years can clearly remember the coverage on a black-and-white TV.
Maybe Stuart comes form a non-engineering background and found the Moon landing coverage exceeded his attention span…
I was referring to The Engineer staff, as the previous sentence talked about the conversation that inspired the poll. I’m the oldest of the team, and I was six months old at the time.
2-3 years ago I heard an interview with a journalist who had been asked to front a science program. Although an enthusiastic amateur, he did not have science qualifications. When he raised this point, he was told that if they could explain the background to him and he could explain it without the jargon, in layman’s terms, then the whole audience would be able to understand. If TV can get people enthused then they will start the journey on their own.
I’m not sure why the focus on television media here. However try the (originally PBS) documentary ‘Chasing the moon’. Otherwise try the World Service podcast ’13 minutes to the moon’. Solid engineering content in that, but for some bizarre reason not downloadable. Very revealing comments about Apollo 1 fire re ambition trumping caution from Wally Schira, one of the 3 Apollo 7 astronauts to be ‘sacked’ for dissent. I’m only 3 episodes in and its a gem of a program.
I recently put together a presentation on systems engineering aspects of the Apollo programme for work and I’d say, of what I found out through multiple sources, maybe a quarter has emerged in the recent media frenzy. Then of course there’s also books…..for those old enough to remember them! And You Tube …check out Don Eyles pitching up at a alumini event with the original source code listing of the LEM computer code, well, some of it. Forget telly and get online, where the next generation are, there’s heaps of stuff.
Chasing the Moon is indeed excellent. I believe 13 minutes… is downloadable via BBC Sounds.
There is no attempt whatsoever to ensure Broadcast coverage of Engineering reflects reality. If there was more people would Vote down their MP most of whom also do not have an idea about engineering.
Some programmes are good but I doubt the general viewing public watches these as they have little understanding of Engineering. The ones that show and appeal to the general viewing audience have to be simplistic but hopefully they convey the attraction of the engineering profession well enough to encourage young people to join.
Get at the source of the problem, i.e., the image of Engineers. When you have Companies such as Sky TV calling their Installers ‘Professional Engineers, etc., Plumbers licenced as Engineers, and the Engineer-institutions not exerting their enormous clout to rectify this culture what hope is there. The incompetent conservative Engineering Institutions are a sad joke and need to move into the 21st. Century. Canada could do it.
I believe at long last some of the most senior Civil Servants are now beginning to accept that the current course content of PPE qualifications must include a hefty lump of technology. A associate of mine an ex RAF senior Systems man is working through a Masters at Cambridge and in the process is receiving some very presentations and discussions from the top ranks of the civil service who are now admitting there is a problem at all levels. It’s the old problem of changing the direction of of a large inflexible organisation with many entrenched operators at senior level. Being brutal is sometimes the only way. Give notice that that from say 2022 further promotion will be dependent on having some technology qualification.
Keith C’s reporting of an astronaut being dismissed for pointing out a potential (or actual) weakness: that has a familiar ring! Just for the record, my dear US colleague/friend , Eugene Alexandroff was one of the ‘fabric-team’ -dealing (the firm was IGS Dover Delaware) with the suits of the astronauts inside the capsule(s) and the flotation collars and parachutes outside. And indeed the original ‘fabric’ structure under which the capsule was to ‘sort-of-glide’ down to splash-down: This was what was termed a tri-axial fabric (ie not warp and weft at right-angles but three sets of yarns at 60 degrees: so that it could NOT tear if over stressed.
Gene was heavily involved in the various inquiries into the fire: telling me later that the three who died (breathing as they did greatly oxygen enriched air ) actually burned from the inside out!
I think a lot of the TV programmes that present ‘exciting science’, are actually showing engineering.
Mechanicians, Technicians, Electricians and plumbers (and management…) are vital constructive professions; but they aren’t Engineers.
But we all know this already!
Personally, I find a lot of the media (TV) coverage of Science/Engineering to be a bit superficial, I’d like more depth. However, to be fair the media companies need to appeal to the mass public to make a profit so I understand their ‘wow look at this’ approach presented by some tick box, diversity approved talking head. Not my ‘cup of tea’ but if it attracts youngsters into STEM that’s great.
I also remember the first moon landing and I also remember the original Open University lectures, real science with no fluff ! Maybe, not so appealing to a lot of the public which is probably why it was on BBC2 late at night.
I too used to think that the Open university programs that there used to be on TV were good in giving glimpses into science and engineering (and sometimes from the “Arts” side – talking about the development of optical tools for sketching) .
There is much that could be done in including all sorts of engineering (military, civil , medical…).
Surgery has benefited much from an engineering approach (from suturing blood vessels, the technologies of heart surgery, cosmetic surgery,…). However the engineering challenges (and ingenuity) are often glossed over; I remember a surgeon, who had developed a means of “breast enhancement” that left no scar, trying to talk about how clever the guys were who had developed the equipment he needed…
There is plenty to show in the Apollo missions on the engineering side (the development of the software, the need manufacturing of the rocket nozzles); some could be tied in to more modern developments (such as air breathing rockets).
However there are plenty of grand challenges from history that could be shown (including Harrison’s chronometer) but one that springs to mind in showing a range of challenges (and engineering techniques) would be Paxton’s Crystal Palace ; not just its Architecture but logistics, manufacturing, testing, fabrication – and, of course its showmanship (it attracted large crowds to see the construction – which, was within both budget and timescale!); a salutary lesson to Architects and construction companies.
So it would help if TV producers talked to engineers and realised the scope of engineering – especially from the history of science and technology
I concur with Another Steve in that I find most of the programmes superficial but then that’s because we are already interested in the subjects and will often have some/a lot of knowledge about them.
However, most people have no interest in the depths of these subjects – and why should we expect them to ?
Yes, I would like more interesting (to me) programmes, but that’s unlikely on the “popular” channels.
I was a Chartered Engineer when Apollo 11 landed and am still working today. I have worked with the entertainment and fashion industries. The logic and targets differ in engineering and entertainment,so what one sees on the screen is the producers’ view of the subject not the engineers’.
It’s important remembering that science broadcasting was never meant to be a substitute for hard study.
It will rarely ever meet the expectations of those already experts in a given field, yet my current profession is owed in no small part to the interest such programmes sparked.
Mediums like YouTube have also raised the bar for science communication. With informational dense but accessible channels like PBS Spacetime & Eons & Crash Course.
I voted “none of the above” when I would have voted “all of the above” if I had that option. Some TV progs get the balance right between enough facts while keeping it accessible, while others are so scared of being highbrow or elitist, that they dumb everything down to unwatchable drivel.
“Tomorrows World” was great in its prime, but the last few series showed signs of being dumbed down.
Television invariably maakes programmes that are good visually, and invariably spend more time focussing on presenters talking than what they are talking about. This ends up being dumbed down, but I suppose this may be inevitable when they are trying to appeal to those who know or understand little of the subject they are looking at. There needs to be another layer of programme above this where the more detailed technical intricacies are examined, without going to whole way to an OU tutorial.
To balance this out – how many ‘Home Improvement’ television shows give an accurate depiction of being a builder/painter/plumber?
The professions (in my opinion) that get a reasonably accurate portrayal on television are medical, teaching, horticulture, policing, politics.
There are a lot of professions that aren’t included on television at all. When was the last time you saw an accurate portrayal of an accountant on tv?
I would like to see some research done to determine what technical level a programme should be. This would vary with the type of programme. The news would be watched by everybody but a specialist programme would be watched by people interested in the subject and so the technical level could be raised. One example is graphs. There is obviously some edict that graphs cannot be used. Everybody has been taught about graphs in school so graphs should be used, they are a very good way of displaying numerical information.
Chris Packham is a very keen advocate of using graphs on the Spring/Autumnwatch programmes, which aren’t engineering, but maybe it’ll rub off.
The problem I have with most of the ‘engineering’ based coverage is that they have to repeat the last 3 minutes after every ad break. I may be advancing in years but I am not in the goldfish catgory yet. By the time the repeated bits are edited out, that ’30 minute’ program contains barely 5 minutes of actual data and most of that is so lightweight that it becomes tedious to watch. I like Guy Martins engineering enthusiasm, but again you get the sense that he flits in, does a bit, and then has to go back to his day job. Rob Bell also presents with enthusiasm but , like others have commented, some of us need more input. We live in hope!