It is important to establish early on why your work is relevant to your audience. If you don’t tell them why it matters to them, it is much harder to maintain their attention.
Why is it always on scientists to keep proving over and over and over again that what scientists do is relevant?
Have you ever looked the number of stories that appear on news websites that have no relevance to people whatsoever?
Is it relevant to most people if Justin Beiber threw up on stage (if you were in the audience, I guess it would be) or if Lady Gaga gained weight or what Paul Ryan’s fitness routine is or how Olivia Wilde’s sex life is going?
The entire freakin’ sports section. Unless you or someone you know is a pro athlete, how is the outcome of some game in another city relevant to you?
C’mon. It mostly isn’t. It’s gossip. Humans are social animals, and we love gossip, competition, and arbitrarily lining up into teams.
“But I’m interested in those!” Yes, and that’s okay. You’re allowed to be interested in those things and many others. But they don’t have to perpetually justify their existence and coverage and attention the way science does. Large news organizations cover a viral video on YouTube and never have to explain the “relevance” of why they’re doing it.
People love all sorts of things that aren’t relevant to them apart from their own intrinsic interest. Why does science have this higher bar to jump?
More than medicine