Why do interviewed scientists all have geometric screensavers or visualizations running?
September 30, 2010 1:52 PM Subscribe
Why do TV journalists always get scientists to run a screen saver or mp3 player visualization in the background?
I have wondered if it was deliberate for the longest time or if it was just that media friendly scientists had a particularly fondness for geometric pattern screen savers. Yesterday a friend was interviewed on TV and sure enough there was the geometric pattern (visualization from windows media player). When I asked him he confirmed that it was at the request of the interview team.
So what's up?
I have wondered if it was deliberate for the longest time or if it was just that media friendly scientists had a particularly fondness for geometric pattern screen savers. Yesterday a friend was interviewed on TV and sure enough there was the geometric pattern (visualization from windows media player). When I asked him he confirmed that it was at the request of the interview team.
So what's up?
I think it's for the same reason that college alumni magazines like to photograph scientists with colored lights, or through a transparent image of some cells or test tubes. To them, it looks "science-y."
posted by ocherdraco at 1:59 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ocherdraco at 1:59 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Science!
Seriously, some journalists, particularly TV journalists have very specific ideas about what scientists should look like. If it's not sciencey enough, by gum, they'll make it so. To be fair, someone in rumpled clothes sitting amidst a cave of pilled papers---a typical researcher's office---isn't very photogenic. Reporters do a lot of stage dressing for photos and tv.
You should hear what the bad ones want us to say (the good ones listen).
posted by bonehead at 2:01 PM on September 30, 2010
Seriously, some journalists, particularly TV journalists have very specific ideas about what scientists should look like. If it's not sciencey enough, by gum, they'll make it so. To be fair, someone in rumpled clothes sitting amidst a cave of pilled papers---a typical researcher's office---isn't very photogenic. Reporters do a lot of stage dressing for photos and tv.
You should hear what the bad ones want us to say (the good ones listen).
posted by bonehead at 2:01 PM on September 30, 2010
Also pulling this out of my ass:
Anything other than a screensaver is compromised information that could be worth something to someone. Giant rows of numbers? What are those numbers? Can someone obtain data they shouldn't have by way of those numbers? Even a regular background reveals information by showing what programs these people use. Maybe they're using an in-house program that the competitors haven't heard of but now will and etc.
posted by griphus at 2:02 PM on September 30, 2010
Anything other than a screensaver is compromised information that could be worth something to someone. Giant rows of numbers? What are those numbers? Can someone obtain data they shouldn't have by way of those numbers? Even a regular background reveals information by showing what programs these people use. Maybe they're using an in-house program that the competitors haven't heard of but now will and etc.
posted by griphus at 2:02 PM on September 30, 2010
To them, it looks "science-y."
And makes often-abstract or microscopic or intangible science results look like, well, something.
posted by limeonaire at 2:03 PM on September 30, 2010
And makes often-abstract or microscopic or intangible science results look like, well, something.
posted by limeonaire at 2:03 PM on September 30, 2010
Best answer: Because regular computer screens are not interesting.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 2:09 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by Threeway Handshake at 2:09 PM on September 30, 2010
Privacy/data sensitivity? To avoid something like this Aussie financial report?
posted by teststrip at 2:10 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by teststrip at 2:10 PM on September 30, 2010
I post articles on a corporate news website, and the people responsible for producing the articles frequently tell me to find a stock photo that looks science-y. By which they mean something that looks like it was taken through a microscope. We had purple hairy blobs for our Swine Flue articles, and we tend to use blue glowing blobs for anything about bio-fuels. Generally, these photos have nothing at all to do with the story.
posted by MexicanYenta at 2:29 PM on September 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by MexicanYenta at 2:29 PM on September 30, 2010 [2 favorites]
Just a guess:
Because of the flicker rate on computer monitors and tvs (at least on the old ones), you get weird, distracting stripey things when you film them. Maybe running a visualization negates this effect. (Or used to, and it's just a holdover from back in the day.)
posted by phunniemee at 2:46 PM on September 30, 2010 [4 favorites]
Because of the flicker rate on computer monitors and tvs (at least on the old ones), you get weird, distracting stripey things when you film them. Maybe running a visualization negates this effect. (Or used to, and it's just a holdover from back in the day.)
posted by phunniemee at 2:46 PM on September 30, 2010 [4 favorites]
Best answer: People in my department have had this experience too. One of my friends asked the cameraman why one time, and he said that actual science doesn't look scientific to the average Joe, so they have to dress us up a bit.
posted by kataclysm at 3:12 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by kataclysm at 3:12 PM on September 30, 2010
I've been there.
Computers are boring. Computer screens of people doing work are boring. In my field we escape that somewhat since we actually make visualizations, but journalists and other media people don't want to see a screen full of code and pdfs (real work), they want to see pretty colors. Now, I can actually run a program that I wrote to spin crazy stuff on the screen. Someone working in chemical engineering or genomics don't usually have the same luxury. So, after prompting, they pop up an unrelated program that looks 'science-y'.
posted by demiurge at 3:25 PM on September 30, 2010
Computers are boring. Computer screens of people doing work are boring. In my field we escape that somewhat since we actually make visualizations, but journalists and other media people don't want to see a screen full of code and pdfs (real work), they want to see pretty colors. Now, I can actually run a program that I wrote to spin crazy stuff on the screen. Someone working in chemical engineering or genomics don't usually have the same luxury. So, after prompting, they pop up an unrelated program that looks 'science-y'.
posted by demiurge at 3:25 PM on September 30, 2010
"Can you put something on the screen that looks more interesting than a spreadsheet?"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:27 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:27 PM on September 30, 2010
A. It looks like science.
B. It's not showing anything about their work or work environment which could be considered confidential.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 3:28 PM on September 30, 2010
B. It's not showing anything about their work or work environment which could be considered confidential.
posted by L'Estrange Fruit at 3:28 PM on September 30, 2010
7 tricks tv news producers use to make computers exciting (hmmmm, seems embedded videos aren't working atm, try again later)
posted by K.P. at 3:29 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by K.P. at 3:29 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I'm going to school for broadcast journalism. I'm also a tech assistant at a unit of the university that makes documentaries.
I've never had anyone tell me anything specific about computer screens, but I've been told some other things I think might apply.
Any lamp that is in frame during an interview should be on. Lamps that are off just look weird. I'm not sure why. We keep dimmers in our location kits so we can turn on lamps, while keeping them low enough so they don't blow out the shot.
You also want your background to be visually interesting but not distracting. You'll notice that well lit interviews tend to be in a dark room with the subject lit up. Often you light up something in the background, too. This adds a bit of depth and interest to the shot.
I think both of these apply with the computer. A computer screen would just look weird if it were blank. If you had a document open or a slideshow screensaver, then people might spend time trying to figure out what it was. But the abstract shapes add some visual interest without taking any of the viewer's mental energy from the interviewee.
I probably wouldn't include a computer monitor in a shot unless there were a compelling reason.
posted by chris p at 3:37 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
I've never had anyone tell me anything specific about computer screens, but I've been told some other things I think might apply.
Any lamp that is in frame during an interview should be on. Lamps that are off just look weird. I'm not sure why. We keep dimmers in our location kits so we can turn on lamps, while keeping them low enough so they don't blow out the shot.
You also want your background to be visually interesting but not distracting. You'll notice that well lit interviews tend to be in a dark room with the subject lit up. Often you light up something in the background, too. This adds a bit of depth and interest to the shot.
I think both of these apply with the computer. A computer screen would just look weird if it were blank. If you had a document open or a slideshow screensaver, then people might spend time trying to figure out what it was. But the abstract shapes add some visual interest without taking any of the viewer's mental energy from the interviewee.
I probably wouldn't include a computer monitor in a shot unless there were a compelling reason.
posted by chris p at 3:37 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
If I ever become famous enough to (a) get interviewed on TV and (b) have a rider full of demands, I am going to insist that a running Connection Machine be visible behind me.
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 3:42 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by AkzidenzGrotesk at 3:42 PM on September 30, 2010
Nthing the more energetic screensaver=distraction theory. I used to run the phosphor screensaver displaying random fortune quotes at work. Whenever someone would come into my office to discuss something, I would rotate my chair around to face them with my back to the monitor. I could always tell when the screensaver came on since their eyes would begin scanning left to right, and they would get mumbly and distracted.
posted by benzenedream at 4:36 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by benzenedream at 4:36 PM on September 30, 2010 [1 favorite]
Because it would look bad if you could tell that they were browsing metafilter....
posted by kjs4 at 5:18 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by kjs4 at 5:18 PM on September 30, 2010
Best answer: There will also be continuity issues if there are some takes where the screen saver is off and then it comes on. The ability to rearrange and cut between the takes would be limited.
posted by jade east at 8:04 PM on September 30, 2010
posted by jade east at 8:04 PM on September 30, 2010
Because they're actually engineers working on sensitive applications and management or the government insists they switch to something neutral when media personnel are present.
Note to phunniemee - flat screens don't flicker.
posted by Rash at 11:05 AM on October 2, 2010
Note to phunniemee - flat screens don't flicker.
posted by Rash at 11:05 AM on October 2, 2010
This thread is closed to new comments.
The visualization is a pretty commonly known screensaver. If the screensaver they're USUALLY using is more interesting (pictures of exploding volcanoes, etc) it could distract people's attentions from the interview itself.
Or the screensaver could have been deemed 'inappropriate' for some reason, who knows. Maybe the guy had pictures of his family or something, not necessarily something you want to broadcast to national television.
posted by Heretical at 1:58 PM on September 30, 2010