NPR's All Things Considered: Today's Episode in the Series, "The Human Edge"

[Alexandre Enkerli]

Sounds like the relationships between mainstream media and academics
are a widespread issue.
Was just listening to the latest episode of a sociology podcast
("Sociology Improv") and they discussed those.
http://thesocietypages.org/improv/2010/08/06/navel-gazing/
Their issue is actually with colleagues who refuse to answer when
questions are slightly outside of one's field of expertise. Of course,
the situation in sociology is quite different from ours. As Chelsea
cogently says, we wouldn't answer questions about paleoanthropology.
But there does seem to be a tricky thing going on when some academics
refuse to play the media game.

Language Log itself has had frequent discussions of media coverage of
language issues. Among my favourite posts on this is "Raising
standards — by lowering them."
http://158.130.17.5/~myl/languagelog/archives/001961.html

"Hard" scientists have the same problems and whole blogs are dedicated
to this "media misrepresentation of science":
http://www.badscience.net/

In our case, I'd argue that the problem isn't just in mainstream
media. Don't know about you but textbook chapters on language, in
cultural anthropology or sociology, tend to make me react very
negatively. With statements about "chimps who can be trained to use
sign language as proficiently as two year old humans," it can be very
difficult to teach some subjects.
There's probably a relationship between textbook coverage and media
coverage. Social scientists without a language background may end up
relying on "common knowledge" which is often misleading and
inaccurate.

So, accurate representation of language issues by mainstream media
could be a focus.

The nice thing is, we're already talking about solutions.
One point is that some linguistic anthropologists are quite
media-savvy (can think of several of them off the top of my head,
several of them outstanding women). It's easier to point to some
thorough explanation which has already been published than to react to
individual points.

In fact, Language Log does a fairly good job on debunking some
language-related stories and some SLA members have collaborated with
them. Pointing people to specific LL posts may sound like copping out,
but it's probably an efficient way to get people to understand some
basic language issues.

Another strategy might be to "start playing the game." As the
Sociology Improv guys say, journalists who are told to go talk to
somebody else when the issue is slightly out of someone's expertise
are unlikely to come back with more relevant questions. And qualifying
statements are likely to be edited out of an academic's answer. But
it's still possible to provide an appropriate answer to questions
outside of our domains. It's rather difficult and we still run the
risk of upsetting colleagues. But it's probably a better strategy than
sending journalists away anytime their questions aren't as relevant as
we'd like them to be.
Again, LL can serve as a model. They often go way out of their domains
of expertise and we might disagree with many things they say. But they
still do a lot to increase knowledge of language-related issues.

Then there's William's well-stated point about outreach. Given the
size and scope of the SLA, it might be quite difficult to build an
actual outreach program which would satisfy the membership. But we can
make a concerted effort to "put linguistic anthropology on the map."
Part of our site's purpose is to contribute to our discipline's
visibility. While the effects may be too subtle to notice, at this
point, it does seem that things are improving on that front. It's a
slow process and there are some "bumps on the road," but it does sound
like we're getting something going.
A useful thing, with social media, is that it's relatively easy to get
the attention of people interested in subjects about which we know.
For instance, a tweet about a media story or a blog response to a
newspaper article might be seen by the original author and trigger
some form of exchange. The tools are there so we may actually use
them.

It'd be very nice if SLA members could send us material: links to
unfolding stories, open letters to editors, guest posts about relevant
issues... All of these can contribute to "language awareness."

Misinformation about language won't go away. But we can help increase
the validity of some key statements about language.

Actually, one place to start might be with misleading statements about
the "Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis"...

--
Alex
http://enkerli.com/



On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 13:13, Chelsea Booth <chelsealbooth at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> I raised this question to Jim and he suggested I forward it to you all:
>
> Why are our non-ling anth colleagues answering questions about language
> rather than recommending us for the job? If someone (NPR or even a student)
> were to ask me a question about the cranial capacity of *Australopithecus
> afarensis*, I would never answer that question when I know there are other,
> more capable, individuals available in the discipline. Perhaps we need to
> also extend our PR to our own association?
>
>
> Chelsea L. Booth
> Ph.D. Candidate
> Department of Anthropology
> Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
> 131 George Street, RAB 3rd floor
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1414
> USA
>
> Fax: 732.932.1564
> Email: clbooth at rci.rutgers.edu
> Website: chelsealbooth.weebly.com
>