Stop me if this sounds familiar...

I was wandering the Internet the other day, and I came across an interesting letter. It was written by a fairly prominent physicist named Richard Feynman, back when he was serving as a tech adviser for a film back in 1958. As I was reading the letter, it occurred to me that it seemed very familiar.

Mr. Ralph Bown
Advisory Board in Connection with Programs on Science
New York, New York

Dear Mr. Bown:
Thank you for your formidable letter describing the legal interrelations. Who is the "designee"? Is that me or am I an advisor, or what the hell? Put it in clear one-syllable words, please.
Anyway the Warner guys have an author named Marcus. He has come to my office on two occasions each for about half a day (so you owe me one day's pay more). The purpose was to get more complete detailed explanation of some of the scientific matters in the report I wrote (like simultaneity in relativity, how short times are measured, etc., etc.). He is very intelligent and I was successful in explaining a great deal to him.
Although the gimmicks, etc. were not on the agenda, he told me about them, and left a document describing his plans. I made no comment on these ideas, telling him they are not my business.
(On the other hands, my hair stood on end as I read the "ideas" for presenting the material. But I kept my hat on and it wasn't noticed. It will relieve me a little if I can say a word to somebody so I can let out steam. So please don't consider the following as a valid for official opinion. It is just me letting off unofficial views and is to be kept safely within these parentheses).
(The idea that movie people know how to present this stuff, because they are entertainment-wise and the scientists aren't is wrong. They have no experience in explaining ideas, witness all movies, and I do. I am a successful lecturer in physics for popular audiences. The real entertainment gimmick is the excitement, drama and mystery of the subject matter. People love to learn something, they are "entertained" enormously by being allowed to understand a little bit of something they never understood before. One must have faith in the subject and in people's interest in it. Otherwise just use a Western to sell telephones! The faith in the value of the subject matter must be sincere and show through clearly. All gimmicks, etc. should be subservient to this. They should help in explaining and describing the subject, and not in entertaining. Entertainment will be an automatic byproduct.)
Don't worry, I'm keeping my hat on and will limit myself to scientific advice only.

Sincerely,
R. P. Feynman

He was talking about the play of science in the entertainment industry, but so much of what he said seems to reflect the very argument we have about the news media today! We've been treating this conflict between information and entertainment as though it were a recent thing, but this makes it pretty clear that the two ideals have been at loggerheads for the past 50 years and longer. Maybe science was an early battleground, and we're only now seeing the effects elsewhere, or maybe the internal conflict in the news media has always been there, and we just didn't notice until now. Either way, this is not a recent phenomenon, and I think we need to start taking the long view of this if we want real answers.