Re: [dinosaur] Prehistoric Road Trip,Tiny Teeth, Fearsome Beasts

[Raven Amos <ravenamos@gmail.com>]

Hello,

Please accept this as the constructive criticism it is (and many apologies for 
the double-send, aviva, I don’t mean to spam, but I forgot to include DML with 
this reply) - I sincerely mean no offense and apologies in advance if you feel 
offended by my critique - I am genuinely trying to learn:
> 
> Hello
> 
> I had a chance to view this program this weekend with my daughter 
> andgrandson.  I have a criticism about this show, two or three of them
> actually.
> 
> First, as my kids pointed out, to our view, this program was soft in content. 
>  The scene where Emily is pulling fossils out of shale slabshad my eyes 
> rolling.  I do believe we have all seen this before with Sir David 
> Attenborough.  This lack of original content repeated itself through out the 
> program.
This is an often repeated refrain all throughout modern media that there’s 
nothing “original” on TV anymore, but I found there to be a wealth of new 
information in the show! For example, I had no idea that there was such a rich 
fossil assemblage at Standing Rock, not being familiar with the area, nor did I 
know about the great work about the Native American paleontologists are doing 
for research in the area. If this information was not new to you, what parts 
were a repeat for you? I would also like to point out this is a show produced 
for PBS, which also has to be acceptable to all ages. In addition, shows like 
this introduce rural “hick" kids like me to concepts like evolution and 
paleontology. Some of us “hicks” might not be familiar or misinformed, so the 
“repetitive” nature of the show *makes it* familiar to those folk because 
everyone has seen David Attenborough, thanks in part to public media (which I 
must remind you is run primarily on donations from viewers - my “hick” 
neighbors and self included).

> 
> The second problem, and this one I consider extremely problematic, is the 
> lack of men in this program.  The program is patently bigoted.  Men are 
> completely sidelined in the entire show.  This is not a message I would want 
> to expose my daughters to, and not my son either.
> 
Are you sure we watched the same program? Plenty of men were featured and 
shared their expertise. What “message” do you send your son/grandson (you 
mentioned both?) when you consider “problematic” a show featuring women in the 
field who are passionate and EXCITED about what they’re researching? Your 
criticisms make absolutely no sense. Am I to understand that your view is if a 
woman happens to be a host on a show about paleontology, the show should *only* 
depict women, because men are somehow made “lesser” by being hosted by a woman? 
Do you feel the same way when a male paleontologist interviews a woman in the 
field, that the women are being similarly “sidelined”?

> Thirdly, Emily's, and other women in the show are constant walking about 
> giggling and smiling.  This doesn't serve the purpose of the show, and 
> reinforces some negative stereotypes.  So the fails to either present a 
> positive view of women in the field, and it doesn't present the field well 
> either.
> 
I am sincerely confused that you would find offense Emily Graslie and the other 
women's earnest excitement with what is being discussed and discovering in the 
program - I would do precisely the same thing in her shoes! So would my 
husband! And who wouldn’t? It’s *exciting* to be the first person to lay your 
hands on an animal embedded in stone for millions of years - it’s a perfectly 
human and *normal* thing to express such excitement! Is your problem with the 
expressing of emotions and excitement? Would you feel the same if a male 
paleontologist expressed similar giggling and smiling demeanors at a discovery? 
Don’t you think ANY paleontologist acts with exactly the same excitement at 
their first discovery as they do their 10,000th? If you really think that, you 
really *don’t* know paleontologists, man or woman.

> A show that doesn't find the best presenters, regardless of creed, gender, or 
> race, is not just repugnant, but it is dishonest, and cheats the viewing 
> public of quality programming, especially when much of the nation is locked 
> down, badly looking for new material to view and read.
> 
I am sincerely confused with how this show is in any way “dishonest”. Please 
kindly explain this point in further detail with examples. Repugnant how? What 
parts are “repugnant”? Is it the production quality? This was produced by a 
public entity and funded with donations, so perhaps the show wasn’t as “flashy” 
as some others, but you got to see real things like the “Dinosaur Shindig”. 
It’s unfortunate it doesn’t live up to your lofty high standards, but myself, I 
found the show to be quite enjoyable, especially with the great artwork by my 
fellow paleoartist Franz Anthony.

> I hope you find this criticism constructive, as it is intended to be so.  I 
> remember a documentary with Paul Serano where he lost "Beth" and
> they were in a panic.  At the time, I thought this was rather over the top 
> and not what should be in a documentary. 
I don’t think you’re being honest yourself when you call this criticism 
“constructive”. Basically you’re okay with Paul Sereno showing emotion, but not 
Emily Graslie or the other women on the show? That is a strange double standard 
given your aforementioned stated hatred of bigotry.

> But Serano has done considerable work to reach deep into the poverty stricken 
> communities, especially the Black and Latino communities of Chicago, in order 
> to educated and produce real talent.  In my opinion, this is where our focus 
> should be. 
Emily Graslie grew up in the Plains States, and was excited to show the 
incredible paleontology that’s literally a long road trip away from Illinois 
where she lives and works now. This area, I want to remind you, shows an 
INCREDIBLY broad cross-section of our planet’s history, billions of years, in 
fact - which is the entire reason the show was created. If WTTW is guilty of 
not showing the diverse communities of it’s home city, I find that to be a huge 
shame indeed and you should write a letter to their station to complain about a 
lack of representation on their channel! The Field Museum is a great place, and 
a place Emily Graslie talks at length about in her Youtube channel. 

Back on the topic of the show, I found the trips she took to Standing Rock to 
be good representation (at least to my eye) of the Great Sioux Nation, a 
similarly poverty-stricken community. They showed there is a desire and a 
process in place for the Lakota of the Plains States to perform their own 
research in state-of-the-art institutions and contribute to science as a whole 
- I myself was ignorant of the fact there were such rich deposits of Morrison 
Formation fossils on the Standing Rock Reservation and look forward to a trip 
to their museum when the virus is a memory - thanks to this show! Given the 
beautiful specimens they are discovering there, isn’t that itself an example of 
“educated, real talent” depicting the local paleontologists of Standing Rock?

> Our focus should not be producing false narratives and
> using bigoted standards to produce programming.
Again, please show examples of bigotry?

>  If one wants to do a
> show about women in Paleontology, just do it.
>  It is a fine and worth topic. 
And never ever show a man on show with a woman? Is your actual problem that a 
man was being interviewed by a woman? Do we really need segregated “woman” and 
“man” shows in the 21st century? That sounds pretty sexist in and of itself, 
doesn’t it, the phrase “a fine and worth topic” in this context?

> But this is not serving any purpose at all over than reinforcing stereotypes 
> and putting a stamp of approval on bigotry.
> 
What bigotry? What stereotypes? Please show your work, screenshots, and 
soundbites.

> Avvia
> 
> PS - it would be nice to see some Black Scientist area in shows, if they have 
> something to contribute. 
Whoaaaaa, NOW who’s being a bigot? ;)

> There has to be one Black paleontologist somewhere, who is an expert on a 
> topic worth covering? 
What topics, precisely, do you deem “worth covering”?

> No? Scott Edwards maybe? Alice Roberts?
> 
You also should mention Brian Atkinson, a paleobotanist and Assistant 
Professor/Curator of Paleobotany at the Uni of Kansas. Nice guy. Bought some of 
my artwork.
> 
>