
to TONMO.
I expect most of us here agree with you completely. Unfortunately, by all reports, the companies that pay for and hire filmmakers to film the documentaries appear to be the ones who really need convincing.
I had an email discussion a few years ago with a science-writer friend who wrote the little descriptions in a few science museums and public aquariums, and mentioned how frustrating it is that there's so little information, and that even if it's as accurate as it can be, just the omissions can effectively make them seem "dumbed down." Her response was that, because they're intended to educate the masses, they've got to take into account that studies have shown that people have a very short attention span, and will stop reading after 2 sentences or one paragraph or something like that. She said that the commonly held belief is that it's necessary to aim the exhibits at these people in order to be effective education. She mentioned that the Exploratorium in San Francisco is the only museum that has tried to be more sophisticated, and while they're very successful, they have a reputation for being weird and unique, and consequently the belief seems to be that there is no point in trying to replicate their style.
I took issue with this whole point of view, but it seems pretty prevalent. I'm not sure why "they" believe that it's necessary to dumb down the information so completely that it serves only the average apathetic visitor/viewer/reader. Frankly, if apathy, inattention, ignorance, or stupidity is that big a problem for the "masses," documentaries and exhibits don't all have to be aimed just at people with those traits: the number of people who will be transformed into science enthusiasts by one source of information is going to be tiny, and targeting them exclusively doesn't seem necessary. In the museum case, I think there should be a large-print short paragraph about the exhibit, and then a small-print detail page for people who are interested in learning more. I don't know if studies have shown that having small print intimidates dumb people or something, but it seems foolish to declare that interested and enthusiastic smart people who like to think and learn have to be denied just because "Joe and Jane Average" aren't interested in the details.
One door that's wide open to address this, but seems to have been infected with the same bad attitude, is web sites affiliated with museums and documentaries. The "rule of thumb" seems to be that web sites for documentaries and museums have to be aimed at the lowest-common-denominator general public, and are essentially a combination of advertising and providing the same information at the same 4th-grade-reading-level. Why not have a section on the web site for people who want more detailed, "educated lay people" levels of further reading? These days, people walking around a museum could even read it on their iPhones, and certainly at home the enthusiastic people could get in the habit of firing up their web browsers on their laptops as they watch a TV show... maybe the URL could even be announced at the beginning of the documentary, so they could follow along.
The attitude that pandering public education to people who are ignorant by cutting down the content until they can learn a tiny bit of new information without feeling bad about their ignorance seems to amount to cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. I suspect people who don't care about science aren't even served by hiding the details: I don't believe that they are only ignorant or apathetic because they're intimidated by the "science is hard, and makes me feel stupid" attitudes, and even if they are, does hiding the (real) complexity get around that in the long term? If they do get interested and want to learn more, is buying into the bad attitude really going to serve to maintain that interest, or is it going to block the interest in the name of keeping the "science education" limited to "infotainment" for people who basically don't care, and are on the verge of switching channels to watch ESPN or E!, or going to Six Flags instead of the public Aquarium?
(sorry, I guess this turned into the "opinionated rant wall o' text"-- I hope it's the intended thought-provoking rather than

)