My Problem with TV shows and hosts versus experts

[Rich Parsons]

I recently DVR'd "Anatomy of a Crash" on channel 205 for the local Comacast line - HD Theater being the channel name.

While the show in itself was very informative and the people interviewed were experts and professionals the host and the editing leave a lot to be desired.

The show tracks the invetigation of an accident (* BMW mid size and Saturn Compact Small Car *) via the investigation to the medical to the engineers. They even cover the us crash testing facilities and Honda's in Japan as well.

Lots of good information to the average person looking to gain some knowledge in the crashes.

That lots of the accidents today would have killed people before, but still cause injuries that have people in physical therapy for months or limited mobility for life. It looks into how a new group can provide the data back to the industry to make vehicles better.

This is all good.


Here is the problem. When the voice over host speaks and acts like an expert of their own.

Examples:

1) Early in the show they show the two crashed vehicles.
A BMW lost control (dry pavement - local police believe they must ahve been cut off, but investigation shows the driver was dizzy and felt funny *) and crossed over a divided highway and hit the on coming traffic. The BMW was broadside to the oncoming Saturn. They hit with the Passenger side of the BMW going sideways into the front of the Saturn.



The driver of the Saturn was cut out but rescue teams. They cut the roof off and the driver's door to get her out. She had suffered knee injuries and leg injuries in the accident.

When they came onto the seen with camera's to show the vehicles, the host stated the "BMW is in relatively good shape" while the "Saturn has taken the brunt of the damage".


The problem is that the BMW was bent over 120 degrees on the passenger side and no one was riding in the passenger seat. If anyone had been then they might have had to cut them out as well.
Also Note: The BMW was larger than the Saturn


2) Later the Host talks about the passengers. He states:
The driver of the BMW was able to "walk away". And also states that the Saturn Driver had to be cut out and taken to the hospital.

The host did talk to the investigator, but they made it look like it was an issue of the BMW driver wearing a seat belt and the Saturn driver was not seated properly.

Although later they meniton the Driver of the Saturn did have seat belt bruising. She also had locked up her brakes and tried to swerve to avoid the accident.

While I believe larger vehicles are safer in general, they do not mention the passenger safety crumple zone for the BMW to address the "Walk Away" effect versus, having the accident be off center on the drivers from front with the BMW wrapping around the front and the side.


3) Later near the end the host states they have the car company in a video conference to share the data with them to allow the industry to make improvements.

The problem is the Host states that the company on the line is FORD. Ford does not make Saturns. GM does.





With obvious errors like this it brings into question anything that the host states, and also what was edited out to stress their point of view.

Mistakes like this frustrate me.


Does anyone else care about obvious mistakes like this and how it effects perception?


****

Now to the other item I would like to discuss. The Saturn was a smaller vehicle most likely got better fuel economy due to size and engine options, but being smaller it lost the battle in the crash for the head on. Even though the BMW was bent and damages as well, the Saturn did take the directional impact to the driver.

To make it better for everyone, all vehicles would have to be the same size with the same line up impact devices as well as a passenger zone where no one sits surrounding the driver and other occupants. But this adds to the size the decreases the possible fuel efficency.


I know others hear have stated that all safety should be the same. But with different weight classes and heights of bumpers and crash devices it anything but the same. Also given presentations like this it makes it look like one vehicle is much more unsafe than the other.


So what should the industry do?

 

[exile]

Rich, I couldn't agree with you more. On almost any topic I know something about via serious training, journalistic coverage is awful. Basic lab methods to rule out extraneous factors, statistical noise or claims of cause-and-effect based on naive correlation are often nowhere to be found.

It would just be a joke, if it weren't for the fact that the popular media typically (i) employ people whose knowledge of basic rational argument and analysis is a joke and (ii) are taken very seriously by a large number of people who—how to put it?—get to vote. The combination is deadly: it means a lot of people's input into democratic decision-making, to the extent we have it at all, is based on what the late Steve Allen, in his last book, called dumbth—bad reasoning based on dubious data—packaged for mass consumption and digestion.

As to what to do about it... hell, I have no idea!

 

[grydth]

Can I join as the 3d Musketeer on this one?

I will say candidly that there are few areas that I'd consider myself any type of expert. That doesn't prevent me from having opinions on everything, which usually should be taken with the same weight you'd give any other hockey fan's...

I cannot watch almost any show on the law without having explosive decompression. What you see on most shows is about as accurate a depiction of trial law as most 1970's films truly depicted real MA. One thing I learned in the law field is that there are always 'experts for hire'. You need an expert to say x? You will always find one... if the price is right. When you see an "expert", always question who paid them and/or what agenda they may have. One may find all sorts of 'scientific' studies with incredible results... oddly enough, results favorable to those who commissioned the study and paid the experts.

Friends wondered why I groaned watching a show on the panzer divisions on the Russian Front..... until I pointed out the film footage used actually showed Russian BT-7s instead of German Panzer III's. If the producers didn't see something that basic, how could we trust their other conclusions? Another specialty military series supposedly featured the greatest battles of World War II Commanders..... only the one the series chose is the one most serious scholars view as the Marshal's WORST campaign.

Don't forget your MA experience - all of the Soke's are experts, too!

 

[tellner]

The job of TV shows and their hosts is to sell advertising.
The job of experts is to represent their area of expertise.
The two are often at odds.

 

[Cryozombie]

I have the same problem with Mythbusters.

I love the show. I love Adam and Jamie. I <3 <3 <3 Kari (and not just cuz she's cute, shes just really smarmy and I think that's awesome)

But some of the things they form opinions on, I have to groan. They often do things that they lack skills and or body type for and then go "Well that myth is busted, can't be done" or their testing isn't really complete... (I recall somthing they did and I went to myself "Well, duh, its the wrong type of ammo you are using")

And by the same token, I can't watch a lot of those Discovery specials about the martial arts.

 

[kidswarrior]

Mistakes like this frustrate me.


Does anyone else care about obvious mistakes like this and how it effects perception?

Yes. I fight the results of this type of program every day in that the kids I teach watch this stuff (or worse) and take it for gospel. Honestly, with enough of it I think it's a big factor in their becoming superstitious.

On almost any topic I know something about via serious training, journalistic coverage is awful. Basic lab methods to rule out extraneous factors, statistical noise or claims of cause-and-effect based on naive correlation are often nowhere to be found.

What he said.

 

[jks9199]

Anatomy of a Crash is actually decent for what it is: an attempt to dramatize crash reconstruction and investigation. Which ordinarily is about as exciting as watching paint dry -- unless you're into it. They do a decent job overall... but they do tend to oversimplify some of it, and to try too hard to get some drama.

On the side note of vehicle safety... all things being equal, bigger is generally better. But all things are seldom equal... and some of those inequalities can make a big difference.

But I get sick of the "experts" on a lot of things. I'm going to have to dig up the article, because it was good... but in the last couple of years I read a piece by someone I respect and may even be acquainted with (I forget who... just remember being excited about the article.) He's a legitimate expert in his area of expertise, and got called out to do several news shows when he had a legitimate reason to be talking. He did a good job, was personable with the host & presented himself well... so one day, he gets a call from a producer wanting him to be a talking head on a subject that's tangential to his area of expertise. I forget whether he did the first one... but he got more calls, that were further and further outside his actual area of expertise... He realized at one point that they were calling him 'cause he'd be a "good guest", not because he was really an expert, and started turning down requests and paying attention -- but could easily understand why someone wouldn't, too. (How many of us have been tempted to opine on something that we really don't know much about to impress someone or because someone we respect is asking us? How few of us have resisted that impulse? I know that I've opined more than once when I barely knew anything... and not just in ******** sessions.)

Finally... tv shows in general. Gotta suspend some disbelief, even if the show is supposed to be real. I frustrate my wife on cop shows and martial arts stuff often, because they do stuff that is just impossible or wrong or doesn't exist... Mythbusters does a decent job... but as their ninja episode, among others, shows, will sacrifice solid material for "coolness." (I'm sure there's a better way to phrase that... but I think what I'm saying is coming through.) Or the chances of an explosion! :redeme: And they sometimes do some goofy stuff that just doesn't make much sense... or miss some kind of obvious ways to test things. (But I still like it... and will watch Kari test just about anything!)

 

[Carol]

(snip)
I know others hear have stated that all safety should be the same. But with different weight classes and heights of bumpers and crash devices it anything but the same. Also given presentations like this it makes it look like one vehicle is much more unsafe than the other.


So what should the industry do?

Rich, if they ain't demonizing cars, they be demonizing cell phones. I think your industry and mine will be held responsible for a coming apocalypse. Shall we plot the end of the world? :lol2: :rofl:

In all seriousness...its a problem endemic to commercial broadcasting. Broadcasters know that productions that stir up emotion gain larger ratings than productions that are emotionally flat. (Example: Rush Limbaugh commands higher ratings than NPR). The broadcasters know they stand a greater chance of hooking an audience by playing to the emotions, such as taking a shot at the auto makers. Or, taking a shot at cell phones. Heck...get a story that involves cars AND cell phones and you've got a story that is pretty much guaranteed to make national news.

I don't know what the solution is. Advertisers have the biggest pull regarding the content of broadcast productions. For the rest of us that aren't sponsors of a TV show, remediation is much more difficult. Its possible for an individual to complain to the station or the network or the producer of the show....but complaints often have a paradoxical effect. Some decision-makers see complaints as a badge of honor because its proof that people are tuning in to their show. A more effective way is when person to vote with their feet (and not tune in to the show/station/network) ... but the effectiveness of this is also not guaranteed, nor is it quick.

 

[Cryozombie]

Rich, if they ain't demonizing cars, they be demonizing cell phones.

Cell phones ARE evil and are contributing to the decline of society. They make people drive like *******s, and turn people into social retards. Before Cell Phones, how often did you get stopped mid sentence in a conversation at a restaraunt so someone could take a call, SIX times, or try and keep the attention of someone texting?

It's all your fault Carol.

 

[jks9199]

Cell phones ARE evil and are contributing to the decline of society. They make people drive like *******s, and turn people into social retards. Before Cell Phones, how often did you get stopped mid sentence in a conversation at a restaraunt so someone could take a call, SIX times, or try and keep the attention of someone texting?

It's all your fault Carol.

Wait... I thought :lisafault:

I admit -- a call on my work phone will take a certain priority, especially when I'm on call. But I'll excuse myself and go outside or otherwise move away from other people rather than hold a separate conversation.

And you can't omit Bluetooth as inventions of evil! Ever been minding your own business only to try to figure out what the hell this loon is suddenly asking you about... and it's just plain impossible to tell the crazy people hearing voices from the folks on Bluetooth headsets anymore!

 

[kidswarrior]

Cell phones ARE evil and are contributing to the decline of society. They make people drive like *******s, and turn people into social retards. Before Cell Phones, how often did you get stopped mid sentence in a conversation at a restaraunt so someone could take a call, SIX times, or try and keep the attention of someone texting?

It's all your fault Carol.

btw i agree y r we evn talkn boutit carol fixit plz

This is how the kids email me, BTW. :lol:

 

[Cryozombie]

This is how the kids email me, BTW. :lol:

"So this is how Grammer dies, One TXT MSG @ a Time"

 

[Carol]

"So this is how Grammer dies, One TXT MSG @ a Time"

Oh My God - They Killed Kelsey!

Oh wait...you were talking about grammar?

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh My God - They Killed Kelsey!

Oh wait...you were talking about grammar?

LOL. See what I mean?

 

[Rich Parsons]

Anatomy of a Crash is actually decent for what it is: an attempt to dramatize crash reconstruction and investigation. Which ordinarily is about as exciting as watching paint dry -- unless you're into it. They do a decent job overall... but they do tend to oversimplify some of it, and to try too hard to get some drama.

JKS,

I agree that the show was good from certain aspects. But your comment that they do a decent job over all I have to disagree with.

As I stated, the experts all rpesented their data in a professional manner that even the medical field expert could be understood by a non professional, but here are some thoughts.

Would it be acceptable for a show to call the NYPD and the LAPD?

This is GM to Ford. While they are both vehicle manufacturers they are different. Just like NYPD and LAPD are both police departments.

If they came on and said the following about your police department, "The department is out dated and is more likely to shoot someone without cause." Would this not upset and worry you? In particular when the data presented does not say that and that their sense of drama is making someone look liable for injuries. Add to the fact that they then referrenced your department and your department had nothing to do with anything other than just being a department like the other departments that were being covered.

I am not trying to upset you personally. I am not trying to pick a fight with you. I am asking open points from your post, for clarification and better understanding.


Thanks