Scientists Need PR

This article is a great help to the Student Green Energy Fund campaign. In the article, Biba addresses the root of the problems behind public opinion of climate change. The author believes that the doubt surrounding climate change is the result of the lack of a public relations expert heading the campaign.

Biba introduces the readers to Kelley Bush, who has a few suggestions for the climate scientists: “…researchers need a campaign that inundates the public with the message of science: Assemble two groups of spokespeople, one made up of scientists and the other of celebrity ambassadors. Then deploy them to reach the public wherever they are, from online social networks to The Today Show.” Scientists are not always the best spokespeople; by having celebrities on their side, as well as climatologists will have a much better chance of effecting change. Biba also suggests that the campaign would need to have the public answering these questions: “What's in it for me? How does it affect my daily life? What can I do that will make a difference?”

These are the exact questions that the Student Green Energy Fund campaign should have students asking and answering. A conversation about climate change needs to be started on FAMU’s campus, and the faculty, staff and student body must all be involved. It is vital to not only encourage the public’s questions but also to have possible answers and solutions to them. Biba’s idea of involving celebrities is also great. Although national celebrities maybe out of our reach, involving FAMU “celebrities” maybe a great alternative. The campaign has to show students that this fund is a realistic option and that their peers, especially one’s with campus notoriety, condone and are implementing change. This article has great ideas that the Student Green Energy Fund campaign can easily use. It is definitely a beneficial and relevant read.

Biba, Erin. (2010, June). Appeal To The Heart. Wired. 18(6). 29. Retrieved November 9, 2011 from ProQuest Science Journals. (doi: 2078370821).

Gaining Trust

What’s a campaign without trust? In the article "A question of trust," the author explains the importance of understanding human perception. When it comes to climate change, researchers must see themselves as "public figures and honest brokers”, transparency is paramount when trying to inform and persuade citizens to action (“A question of trust,” 2010, p. 7). The author believes that scientists are unaware of the new responsibilities that they possess as representatives of the climate crisis and “green” movement. The science around climate change can be uncertain sometimes funding agencies and researchers must show all the possible analyses on research that has been conducted. The author states, “Those who seek to sow doubt about the solid and widespread evidence for global warming must be countered with facts as a matter of course. But legitimate fears and scientific skepticism must be welcomed into the discussion” (p. 7).

The ideas presented in this article are extremely beneficial to the FAMU Green Energy Fund campaign. The article focuses on the importance of being transparent and about the science of global warming. Research shows that none of the findings are conclusive, seeing that all science has room for error, and many advocates of climate change tend to shy away from the uncertainties of the science. But this article wants researchers and advocates embracing the uncertainty. The author believes in essence that honesty is the best policy and the public will support a cause whose spokespeople have been straightforward and honest about the research backing it. In the FAMU Green Energy Fund campaign, the same principle must be applied. It must be made clear that the focus group facilitators and survey distributors are not experts on the climate crisis and that research surrounding it is being analyzed and perfected every day. If students feel that the campaigners are honest about their intentions and knowledge, they (participants in surveys and focus groups) will be more likely to participate and give honest answers and opinions themselves.

A question of trust. (2010). Nature, 466(7302), 7. Retrieved from Research Library. doi: 2081400641.

How to Fight Back Against the Skeptic

Article: “Defeating the Merchants of Doubt”

It seems that a number of people still believe that climate change or global warming is just a “theory.” By viewing the contribution of human pollution and waste to warming and climate change as speculation, the general public has not grasped severity of the subject in today’s world.
The article suggests that public confusion is caused by “doubt-mongering” (Oreskes & Conway, 2010, p. 686). The authors argue that, this strategy is not a new one and it has been used to negate other scientific studies and research, as well (p. 686). It seems that the history of claims against the theory root from sources that were biased because of affiliations with or obligations to organizations that benefit from the research.
Though the article’s target audience is scientists, the solutions the authors give on how to combat the “doubt-mongering” can be applied to public relations campaigns, as well. Oreskes and Conway (2010) suggest:
A few years ago, 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences wrote a letter in response to recent attacks on climate scientists. The Academicians began by noting that ‘science never absolutely proves anything’ and went on the explain that ‘when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned and examined, they gain the status of well-established theories and are often spoke of as facts.’ Although this care and nuance is intellectually scrupulous and admirable, being so philosophical about the ‘factual’ nature of climate change doesn’t serve public communication. (p. 687)
By asserting the facts about climate change and how humans can help change the downward spiral of global warming, scientists will better persuade the public of its severity. Oreskes and Conway (2010) also mention that scientists need to be informed of the history of “doubt-mongering” (p. 687).
When creating a campaign to persuade the public to believe in the scientists, public relations practitioners must apply these tactics. As always, words and the presentation of the material must be chosen wisely. The controversy, speculation and indifference surrounding this subject are a challenge, and in order to effect change, the public relations dynamics need to be creative, honest and clear. Many skeptics feel as though recent scientific interest and activity in the field as just a fad (Oreskes & Conway, 2010, p.687). Scientists have been discussing and proving the effects of global warming for years. By knowing the history, public relations professionals will be able to negate the doubt that climate change and global warming are a new trend among scientific research. Finally, as Oreskes and Conway say, “Reporters need to dig deeper” (p. 687). If persuasion is the end goal, then public relations professionals must become experts in the field. There is no way around it. You must know the facts in order to inform, persuade and move to action — it’s what we do.

Oreskes, N. & Conway, E. (2010). Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature, 465(7299), 686-687. Retrieved September 21, 2011, from ProQuest Science Journals. (doi: 2065591471).

Who Wants to Be A Millionaire

Event: Who Wants to Be A Millionaire
Date: Wednesday February 17, 2010
Location: Perry-Paige Auditorium
Mood: Stressful
After weeks and weeks of planning and hard work, I was excited to see the event come to life. By the end of the event, I was tired, relieved and irritated. I believe that the event was great. It gave students an opportunity to come in contact with finance specialists that could give great incite into a financial world that can seem so daunting to a college student. They we provided with extensive packets and other goodies that could and should be use as great tools in their financial endeavors. I should also mention that they were even fed at the end, and allowed one on one conversation with the facilitators to ensure all of their questions could be answered.
As I am sure any professional knows that where there is an event there is a complaint. I must admit that at first these negative words were discouraging and no doubt annoying. But after speaking with my fellow PRodigy peers I realized that these complaints come with the territory. This event was eye opening for me, not just financially but professionally as well. This event provided me with the chance to truly experience the world of event planning and production. And I have decided that next year’s “Who Wants to Be A Millionaire” event is going to be even better.

State of the University Address

Event: State of the University Address
Date: Monday, February 15, 2010
Location: Lawson Multi-Purpose Center
Mood: Uncomfortable
It was not surprise that he his speech pertained to budgeting and the inevitable university cutbacks. The United States economy as a whole is suffering it should be expected that there would be hardships to face for a HBCU that had stood so long in the background of Florida State. Granted it was a little difficult to take his “call to action” against wasting funds seriously because of the surrounding. As I sat comfortably in the new multi cultural center and listened to his speech, that was read from a teleprompter—actually there were two on either side of him. Not to mention the jumbo sized projector that showed few slides that he had.
Although, it is obvious that I question some of the presidential misuse of funds, I do agree that it is our jobs as a university to be more conservative as a whole. Together we have to not only figure out how to save the little money we do have and raise more money at the same time. I am a fan of the Ammons administration, and I am confident, although I mock his State of the university speech, the improvements that have been made are for the best.
What was a surprise was that, the usual approachable and accommodating President Ammons did not take any questions following his daunting address. I have to say that I was a little disappointed that he did not give time for a response for his audience. If the administration is to fix this problem, it will take cooperation from everyone. So, next time maybe let us talk and give or suggestions and concerns.