The most generous word I could use to describe the current state of media is "fractured". It's not that all audiences have turned solely to social media and that traditional media is dead, but it's that everybody has an almost dizzying array of options available to consume entertainment. And while some demographics may prefer certain channels (you won't find a lot of teenagers on Facebook or watching the local evening news, for example), if we want to reach audiences we have to go where they are.

What compounds this is the challenge to create meaningful, impactful educational and inspirational opportunities. It's relatively easy to, say, pour tens of thousands of dollars down the drain of a social media campaign, and that campaign will generate clicks and likes and shares and "engagement" in the narrow sense that advertisers care about.

But it may not be the kind of engagement that we care about.

We can't discount the power of personal interactions. That precious moment when you have someone's full attention, can look them straight in the eye, and get to share something wonderful about the way the world works. Seeing those eyes light up with awareness and true understanding for the first time is the best form of storytelling and education. Social and traditional media are powerful too, yes, and we must use them to push to new and broad audiences - often because there's only a slim chance they'll come to us without encouragement. But in our yearning for clicks and shares, we shouldn't forget the human moments that make our mission possible...and fun.

I've had a pithy saying that I like to toss around. I don't know where I got it, and I can't find a source for it, so I'll go ahead and take credit for it: the first thing that lies to you is the data.*

If we have a question about the world, or about best communication practices, or what audiences prefer, or whatever, it's tempting to just "get some data" and call it a day. We'll do some measurements or make some observations, and that will tell us how to move forward. Easy-peasy!

Except, it usually won't.

People lie in surveys. Bias sneaks through in unexpected ways. Instruments can be miscalibrated or used incorrectly. And perhaps worst of all, uncertainties are miscalculated or left out altogether. The classic book "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff goes into this last point in depressingly hilarious detail, and should be required reading for...well, let's just go with the whole human race.

Data can easily mislead you, and if you're not careful it's even easier for unscrupulous people to abuse the "results" for their own purposes. While some good questions to ask will come in another piece, it's most important to remember that most data-collection efforts are far more inconclusive and nuanced than they may appear at first blush. Never be afraid to challenge results and arguments - this is exactly what happens in the halls of academia every single day.

It's tempting to put a blind trust in data, but that's a rookie mistake. The extensive training that it takes to be a scientist starts with data collection techniques, but quickly moves to data interpretation, and pretty much occupies the rest of their professional careers.

*The second thing that lies to you is yourself, but that's the subject of another piece. And yes, "data" is usually plural, but it sounds better as a singular here so I'm leaving it.--

A person is more than a list of facts, right? If you were asked to describe someone, you would start out with simple stats: height, build, hair color (or lack thereof), etc. Then you would go to more abstract descriptions, like their general attitude or personality. But to really uniquely encapsulate a human being you would have to describe them with intangibles, those hard-to-express but essential attributes that, woven together, paint a picture of what a person is actually like.

It's all too easy to present science as a list of facts. But how do we communicate what science actually is? What the scientific process entails, or what it means to have a scientific mindset and worldview? How skepticism, constant criticism, deference to observation, and boundless creativity mix together to make a potent combination? How do we explain what it's like to be a scientist without becoming one?

Don't get me wrong - cool and fun facts about the universe are, well, cool and fun, and certainly help to draw audiences into the world of science. But in a media landscape dominated by sensationalist clickbait headlines that only deliver surface-level engagement - or no engagement at all - it's troubling to see science presented in the same way and falling into the same traps. Our goals of science communication have to be so much more. We have to show the "how" in addition to the "what". Indeed, the method we use to discover an answer is far more important, and far more meaningful, than the particular number or fact that results from that search.

We can't ever forget in our teaching moments the "how" we do science, otherwise it will always be just a list of empty facts, as easily consumed and discarded as the last headline.