After supper last night I parked in front of the tubule and switched on the Discovery Channel. There was an intriguing program on the Cueva de los Cristales (Cave of Crystals) in Mexico. The Naica mine has become famous for its gigantic selenite crystals (calcium sulfate). National Geographic filmed a program on these wondrous crystals and it has been broadcast on the Discovery Channel.
What has raised my ire on this is not the production value. As usual, the cimematography was superb. What is disappointing is the story they chose to tell.
What I have noticed in the public science programming world is a particular weakness that quietly infects writers, directors, and producers. The weakness has to do with the fear of boring their audience. Rather than risk a pandemic of somnolence, writers kick up the script a notch with undercurrents of intrigue and a suggestion of danger for the intrepid parties crawling in the muck or harassing gators.
That’s fine. It never hurts to plan for short attention spans in the audience. But what suffers is a sense of proportion. When the focus shifts from the subject of the expedition to the members of the expedition, the program crosses the line into the tawdry world of show business.
Yes, it is quite hot in the cave. Yes, heatstroke is an issue to be wary of. But, what about the crystals?? What are they made of? Where is the water from which they were precipitated from? How does crystallization work?
And, where is the chemist on the team? National Geographic brought together a geologist, a planetary astronomer, a nuclear physicist, a biologist, and a few others who were not identified. This is a common omission on the part of people outside of the chemical sciences. Nobody knows what the hell we do!
For the showbiz effect, they brought in a planetary astronomer, Dr. Chris McKay, to examine the cave for possible implications on Martian exploration and the Evolution of Life. To media people, science equals- 1) Space Science, 2) Medicine, 3) Computer Science, and 4) oh, did I say Space Science?
It turns out I used to know Chris McKay. He was a TA in an astronomy course I took at the University of Colorado ca 1978. He was a geat guy and, unlike other misfits misanthropes bed wetters grad students in the astro/geophysics program, an attentive and caring instructor. He was (and is) a true believer in space exploration. We spent a long and chilly evening together in the Sommers Bosch Observtory at CU manually guiding the 24 inch telescope on a guide star for some lengthy time exposures of a string of galaxies. We used 3×5 Tri-X plates hypered in H2.
This showbiz reflex is a chronic condition and I am sorry to see National Geographic succumb to it.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Did somebody say “Drierite”? Take pictures, mine it, stop the waste. The Republicant party needs a strong new plank for its platform of empowering aggressive ignorance.
The national geographic and the discovery network of channels are undergoing a pop-sification of sort lately. I don like it at all
“a strong new plank for its platform of empowering aggressive ignorance.”
Well put.
This kind of programming is a type of “school of thought”. The network needs eyeballs on the screen, so they hire people who can apply the programming methods used to produce American Idol and Lost. These tawdry programs are about gossip, not the banner subject. I would like to have a half hour with some of these people to let them know what I think of this.
I feel the same, although it would not take me half an hour to tell them what I think!
Lots of other small things make me laugh, like the glossy effect and the fact that animals are not allowed to piss when on camera (but they can hunt because one needs to show the Wild). Frankly, even Disney is more modern.
Have you noticed that when there is, on their program, an African or South American woman, the National Geographic always calls them “females”? They obviously think that it takes a bra to be a woman.
It is all 19th century exploration.
I think the nature film business is in decline. After all, how many times can you have “Shark Week” per year? 52? All the easy stuff has been done, and done, and done. So, they have taken some clues about film making from the reality show genre. That is, make the show about making the show.