All the News That Isn't

Oh dear, we are in some big trouble.

When I attended the 2000 Society for American Archaeology meetings in Philadelphia, I spent an exhausting and exhilarating six days hip deep in papers and conversation. As you might guess, many of the sessions I was able to attend (out of the 26 or 28 concurrent sessions) were on public archaeology, electronic publishing and media relations. Many of these papers were very exciting indeed; but downright disturbing to me was a panel discussion with four representatives of the traditional press--including Steve Burns from Discovery magazine, Evan Hadlington from public television's NOVA series, Peter Young of Archaeology magazine and John Noble Wilford of the New York Times.

Of the four, only Peter Young came across an an advocate for archaeology. The others made it clear that archaeology is not a priority to their work unless it is "news"--that is, unless the site is judged important by their editorial staff or represents a sea change in the present understanding of the field. Although this makes perfect sense--after all there are many different science topics going on at any given time in the world--it should be a reason for concern for those of us who care about archaeology. If the only time the New York Times or Discover magazine will present archaeological data, it's because of some perceived value determined by non-archaeologists, what we're going to find is a) inflated, exaggerated, or just plain wrong information in the mainstream press and b) major news stories, such as the recent debate over cable cars to Machu Picchu, being considered by the press as "a local issue" not earning editorial space. That happens today, doesn't it? All the time. At the same time, the editor of Archaeology magazine was quietly making the point that there is news in archaeological sites of many kinds, and he is interested in obtaining as many as he can get.

Don't misunderstand me--NOVA and the others represented at this meeting regularly provide accurate and useful information about archaeological sites to the public; but the selective printing of information on "flashy sites" everywhere results in the falsely glitzy or glamorous presentation of archaeological sites and issues in other parts of the culture.

It seems clear to me that one of two things needs to happen. Either we need to sneak a ringer onto the editorial boards of these media, or, we need to speak directly to the public that cares about archaeology. The last is the easiest, because we already know how to reach those audiences--they subscribe to Archaeology magazine, to Current Archaeology, to Archeologia, to Archaeology Odyssey and the other general public magazines. We can support these magazines with our subscriptions, with our open support of each other's publications in these journals, and most importantly, with articles of our own.

Now I know archaeology is not cancer research or global warming. But I feel that the cultural resources of the world are worth saving, even if they don't mean life and death to someone. If you feel the same way, support the venues which speak directly to the people who also believe that; and if you are a professional, see that your site information is published in these places.