I used to think it was a failure to communicate, but I've increasingly come to the conclusion that the "average person on the street" really just doesn't care.
You can be the best speaker in the world, but you'll still only end up communicating to a small sliver of the average people.
I think changing the cultural attitudes towards science will do far more good in the long run, but it's very difficult. Ultimately, I think science isn't loved because it's slow, difficult, and filled with probablistic truth that will likely change in a few years.
This compares poorly to the easily marketable absolute truths that fill most people's days. The worst of science reporting happens when reporters try to make science fit into this mold.
Typical fallacy wherein one person believes strongly in something - in this case science - and believes that those who don't share the belief are somehow missing out on something important.
If you have a passion about anything at all, good for you. Preaching its importance to the world at large means very little to those who don't share your interest. You might introduce a few new people to a topic which they will then grow into themselves, but the majority of your words will fall of deaf ears.
Fanatics of science are especially prone to this problem, because of this idea that it's all based on facts and improving life, and so surely every single damn person on the planet HAS TO CARE.
Not to mention that the real science buffs typically can't even begin to understand that _not everyone thinks the way they do_. Brainy people tend to think everyone else alive must be as curious and obsessed with details about every aspect of life. You know what, some people are very happy living without daily intellectual bombardment.
You can be the best speaker in the world, but you'll still only end up communicating to a small sliver of the average people.
I think changing the cultural attitudes towards science will do far more good in the long run, but it's very difficult. Ultimately, I think science isn't loved because it's slow, difficult, and filled with probablistic truth that will likely change in a few years.
This compares poorly to the easily marketable absolute truths that fill most people's days. The worst of science reporting happens when reporters try to make science fit into this mold.