…and this is a 
CNN screws the pooch
Category: Media
Posted on: December 4, 2008 1:45 PM, by PZ Myers
As part of an ongoing program of reducing their relevance and demolishing their credibility, CNN has just completely shut down their Science, Space and Technology unit. Who needs good science coverage, after all, since nothing important happens in that area…and as the US continues to dumb down its educational system, the number of interested viewers is probably dropping, too.
The media knows where the profits lie, and it's not in that expensive journalism stuff — it's in the cheap and popular domain of opinionated airheads shouting at each other. This is symptomatic of a deep intellectual rot in this country.
Comments
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 4, 2008 1:47 PM
CNN had a science, space, and technology unit?
-jcr
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 1:49 PM
Yeah CNN is just as useless as most of the other news networks. Miles O'Brien was at least interesting to listen too. He knows his stuff about the space program and is generally pretty enthusiastic about it.
I wonder if Dr. Sanja Gupta is next. He's mostly good.
Posted by: Benny the Icepick | December 4, 2008 1:51 PM
Let's see, what "news" does Sensationalist CNN see fit to put on its front page?
"Obama calls rep., she hangs up ... twice!"
Ah, yes, very relevant to the current political atmosphere
"Home dazzles with 210,000 lights"
Relevant to my interests? Not so much
"The most annoying holiday song is ..."
Really? On CNN?
"Freaky squid kin has elbows, long legs"
Wait. Wait, squid? Well, maybe they can stay.
Posted by: Kausik Datta | December 4, 2008 1:53 PM
I don't think Dr. Sanjay Gupta would have to go... He is a doctor, talking about health issues, and those always sell! Sad about the Science unit, though...
But then again, seriously, the day I get my science fix from the CNN, Fox and their ilk, would be the day I would leave my profession as a researcher and take up homeopathy!
Posted by: Kelreth | December 4, 2008 1:54 PM
Wow guess its just BBC now for anything remotely intelligent
Posted by: spyderkl | December 4, 2008 1:56 PM
CNN's just barely been watchable for at least 2-3 years now, IMO. And now...that mere sliver of watchability (it is too a word, dammit) has gone away.
Posted by: Alverant | December 4, 2008 1:56 PM
I still see the Tech and Science sections on their website. I haven't seen their cable station in ages so I can't comment about that.
It was probably a business decision. They're neglecting their corporate responsibility to inform by focusing on more fluff pieces, even if it's more popular.
Posted by: Toddahhhh | December 4, 2008 1:56 PM
Are there any sponsors willing to pay to send Paris Hilton to college to be a scientist? We'll beat 'em at their own game!
Posted by: Deepsix | December 4, 2008 1:56 PM
That's why I refer to cable news networks as "News Entertainment". Kinda like "Sports Entertainment"- otherwise know as the WWE (WWF).
Reporting the news isn't their priority- it's creating entertainment and hype to increase viewership.
Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | December 4, 2008 1:57 PM
Are they replacing in with a pseudoscience unit?
I'm reminded of when Seventeen magazine got rid of their Sex section and replaced it with more astrology. Yeah, that's much more important.
Not My God
www.sarahtrachtenberg.com
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | December 4, 2008 1:58 PM
PZ!
Relax. The prospects for the Republic are as bright as ever. I don't see any evidence of the 'dumbing down' you decry, you old codger you. Damn kids! You should be mowing my lawn!
The nation's real internal dialogue was never on TV. The quality of thought, the level of debate is today so much better than what it was. We have the web now. And blogs like the ones here. You're watching the slow, wasting death of an obsolete business model that depended on obsolete technology. Nothing more.
Posted by: Chris Davis | December 4, 2008 1:59 PM
I find this a frightening trend - one in full swing over here across the pond too.
It enrages me when some of the most extraordinary, unprecedented science is being revealed every day, and the news is full of politics, babies, celebs and bloody sport. If yer lucky, there'll be a ten-second '...and finally' with a bowdlerised version of the facts.
For many, this is all the science - or even reality - they get.
Posted by: Carlie | December 4, 2008 1:59 PM
I don't know - I'd reserve judgment for the moment. They say that they're integrating the science coverage in the general. Yes, this could mean science disappears, but it could also mean that science gets covered more as part of the mainstream rather than "and here's the part for you science geeks, everyone can tune out now".
Posted by: Glen Davidson | December 4, 2008 2:00 PM
On the plus side, they did get rid of Glenn Beck.
Still, what are they aiming for? A stupid audience, just not one stupid enough to watch Beck?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Sigmund | December 4, 2008 2:00 PM
At least Larry King is still there.
Posted by: jsmizzle | December 4, 2008 2:00 PM
Perhaps this is a sign that people are going more towards specialized outlets for science news (say, a snarky blog with lots on information on cephalopods) over the cumbersome News networks?
Posted by: Robert | December 4, 2008 2:09 PM
Mexico is looking better and better.
Posted by: deadyeti | December 4, 2008 2:10 PM
Makes me thankful that in the UK the BBC can't do things like this. Maybe the License fee isn't such a bad thing
Posted by: amphiox | December 4, 2008 2:10 PM
I'm inclined to agree with #11 and #16. CNN and its ilk are simply finding that they can't compete in this arena, and are taking the coward's way out.
Posted by: Teh Merkin | December 4, 2008 2:11 PM
That is an interesting take on it, one that I had not thought of. Thanks!
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 2:12 PM
i agree with Paul @11.
Posted by: hje | December 4, 2008 2:16 PM
Re: CNN screws the pooch.
No, it was when they hired Glenn Beck.
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution | December 4, 2008 2:16 PM
BOOOOOOO CNN!
This hardly surprises me at this point, though, as they most recently took their most credible science reporter and turned him into freakin' Geraldo with a week-long expose on UFOs...
Welcome to the new CNN... now also known as "Star magazine TV".
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | December 4, 2008 2:17 PM
I've been getting my science and other news off the internet for quite a while. I haven't watched a TV news show since election night.
Posted by: Gregory Mayer | December 4, 2008 2:26 PM
After seeing Miles O'Brien's completely credulous, fawning interview of Bud Hopkins on alien abductions recently, this seems to me like a step in the right direction for CNN. Are they getting rid of O'Brien?
Posted by: designsoda | December 4, 2008 2:29 PM
I'm with jsmizzle and Nerd of Redhead. CNN probably could not compete with the vastly superior (and often free) sources of science and technology news on the internet.
Posted by: deadyeti | December 4, 2008 2:34 PM
The web is all well and good and is an amazing resource, if you no where to look and who to trust - but you only have to look at the creation vs evolution debate too know that there are a lot of sites out there which will force feed the masses lies dressed up as science
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 4, 2008 2:35 PM
You people are such naysayers. Don't you see that with the Science, Space and Technology unit gone they will now finally have the funds to double their "Follow Around Paris Hilton and Britney Spears" division?
Posted by: Tim Fuller | December 4, 2008 2:35 PM
Why am I such a standout contrarian even in a circle filled with them?
Truly a day to rejoice! You ran the bastards out of the business!! The strong survive, the weak don't. It's the natural evolution of the news media.
Enjoy.
Posted by: CJ | December 4, 2008 2:36 PM
Can I say, in all honesty, that I am not even close to surprised? Or heartbroken. The last time I read a science post on an MSM website, I started arguing with my computer because the author wasn't there to beat over the head.
Next thing we know, CNN will be sponsoring the removal of science and technology from public schools. Not just the classes. I mean the actual science and technology.
Posted by: Tezcatlipoca | December 4, 2008 2:36 PM
unfortunately they still have Lou Dobbs. Last night he was doing a bill-o impression and going on about "the war on Christmas" or something. Then put up a poll about the ACLU and their "agenda"
Posted by: Jello | December 4, 2008 2:37 PM
I havn't watched TV news since 9/11. The insane amount of adnauseum coverage drove me away forever. #11 May be right, the internet may do to TV what TV did to radio.
Posted by: charles | December 4, 2008 2:40 PM
i did find it odd that they hit him up with a bunch of UFO investigations (and not the "good kind") these last few weeks. that's always a sign of certain demise.
Posted by: NonyNony | December 4, 2008 2:41 PM
Reading the article left me feeling dirty. Mostly because of this:
the unit is being shuttered as the network integrates science, environment and technology reporting into the general editorial structure. "Now that the bulk of our environmental coverage is offered through the Planet in Peril franchise, which is part of the AC360 program, there is no need for a separate unit," Robinson says.
Emphasis mine. "Franchise". That's how they think of their news coverage - as a franchise targeted at specific demographic chunks. They're not even hiding the fact that they're not trying to be informative anymore - they're flaunting it.
But actually, the science reporting on CNN has been pretty terrible. I've sometimes wondered what it was like on CNNi (which I don't get). I've heard from foreign grad students that CNN International is a great news channel and they're boggled at how terrible the channel that calls itself CNN in the US is. I assume it's because the production centers for CNNi aren't located in Atlanta with the rest of the mediocre CNN behemoth.
Posted by: strangest brew | December 4, 2008 2:46 PM
"CNN has just completely shut down their Science, Space and Technology unit"
How can ya tell? ;-)
Posted by: Chris Bradley | December 4, 2008 2:50 PM
I don't think that the CNN closing down it's science desk is a sign of intellectual rot in the country but at CNN. And it isn't that the people don't want good news. We do. But it's like those reality TV shows. Reality TV shows don't get as good of ratings as more traditional TV shows that are acted and directed - BUT they cost a tiny fraction of what a real show costs. So while they generate less revenue they cost *so much less* that they're still a good deal for the *network*.
Real news is expensive and it gets readers, viewers, etc., and while less newsworthy news gets fewer readers and viewers it also costs much, much less to produce, enough to make up the differential in loss of viewers.
Which is what happens when you run news as a business - they're not concerned with the public trust of accurately and concisely reporting intelligent news that citizens need to be good citizens. There used to be some of that, but the consolidation of news services in with "media" companies has generally caused them to be run very strictly with an eye to the bottom line to the grave detriment to the news - not just the science news but the news in all areas. But I don't think it's a result of the intellectual rot in America, but a sign of the corruption caused by everything being for sale on the marketplace. Good news often costs more than it'll ever make - if you measure it just in dollars. But we shouldn't confuse that with the people not WANTING good news, I think.
Posted by: Richard Harris | December 4, 2008 2:58 PM
...You're watching the slow, wasting death of an obsolete business model that depended on obsolete technology. Nothing more.
But isn't it still indoctrinating (the) hoi polloi?
Posted by: pixelfish | December 4, 2008 3:00 PM
I use CNN less and less to get my news. Sometimes I rethink my decision to get my news only from the internet, because one thing hardcopy newspapers seemed to have going for them, was their news placement. They had things clearly divided up into news (local, national, international) in the front section with the most important stories (on whichever scale was making the most impact currently) on the front page. You had human interest stories in a section somewhere in the middle, usually close to the lifestyle stories. CNN's website only makes the most cursory stab at this, and sometimes bypasses huge national stories in favour of the weird, inane, and completely useless. On the day that thousands and thousands of gay people and their allies protested Prop 8, you had to go looking for the story by scrolling down to the US news sections. Granted, the California wildfires story was very big that day too, but there were a fair number of stories that were there only for their shock-value or their pop-culture buzz.
CNN hasn't really lived up to the promise of news on the internet either. One of the things I thought would be great about reading the news online is that you could get MORE, not being limited to inches of type on a page. But CNN will annoyingly waste headline linkage on a teaser paragraph or two. Their habit of not providing transcripts or summary articles for things they cover only in video is irksome.
All in all, I find it hard to find USEFUL news on CNN, but since they are a world name in news and many people associate them with that, it would be nice if they would actually treat their journalistic forays as journalism instead of franchise opportunities.
Posted by: SEF | December 4, 2008 3:04 PM
Only very remotely.Posted by: dean | December 4, 2008 3:05 PM
I don't think I ever saw any real attempt by CNN (or any of the outlets) to advertise the presence of a science division - perhaps they think it makes them "too elitist?"
Minor note to RH (although your parenthetical 'the' seems to imply you know):
"the" is not needed with "hoi polloi" (even though many dictionaries state "commonly preceded by 'the'")
Posted by: Jello | December 4, 2008 3:06 PM
@Chris Bradley
Amen to you sir. It is precisely this idea that explains why NPR and other public news sources tower over commercial news in the quality department. They do not answer to profit hungry boards and investors so they can direct funds toward real news and in depth coverage. Additionally, it is this quality that gains them the contribution they need to run. There business model relies on selling quality news and information, not entertainment so they have to perform or people will stop donating.
Posted by: Boomer | December 4, 2008 3:06 PM
This is the last straw. I'm turning to MSNBC now for my mainstream US news coverage. I noticed that in recent months CNN's science coverage was slipping. It's a shame they let go of Miles O'Brien as a consequence, but I'm confident he'll move on to bigger and better things.
Posted by: Ronald | December 4, 2008 3:07 PM
PZ Myers thank you for bringing this subject under my attention. So Miles O'Brien can forget about his job there I asume and all the other pretty informed science focused people at CNN. Really sad and maybe it's because most powerful people are generally not interested in the Laws of Nature...they prefer to invent Laws for the People...because they know...they say.
Again the President elect is not a science guy, but his background is law. All those years on earth that there Lawyers around, did this fact helped humanity a lot?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | December 4, 2008 3:09 PM
I love the anti-lawyer people. They rank up there with the Libertari....
Oh shit. I almost said it.
Posted by: watercat | December 4, 2008 3:09 PM
CNN--that's some TV show, right?
Posted by: CaptainKendrick | December 4, 2008 3:17 PM
No need to despair...for we will always have the HISTORY CHANNEL for fine educational programming....
snicker. snicker.
Posted by: oldtree | December 4, 2008 3:19 PM
Not sure if it is rot or compost by now? That may be kind as well, perhaps, dust?
Look at what CNN talks about in general. Count the advertising minutes compared to any actual news. You don't get a good feeling when your news is 80% useless drivel. And this is on a day when they are just running a feed of what is happening.
On a normal day, is there 2% news on any of these networks? The history channel is a good example too. One hour show about science, what, 9 or 10 minutes of new information repeated ad naseum? Children lose their train of thought soon enough to put TV learning in question. How about us oldsters?
Posted by: Mike P | December 4, 2008 3:22 PM
Frankly, CNN wasn't doing a good job reporting science. It wasn't willing to invest in good science reporters and wasn't willing to spend TV hours devoted to science because they're often less profitable. And many of you have rightly pointed out that the science-interested folks have largely turned to specialty publications, like blogs and science news websites, for their science info. All that's fine.
I think the shame is that people who aren't specifically interested in science will now see even less of it. We bemoan the lack of science literacy in the country, and I think a large part of that is that unless we actively seek out science, we don't see it.
People in the journalism business often refer to the golden age of journalism, when editors and producers (purportedly) took seriously the mantle of gatekeeper, telling people the things they needed to know to make informed decisions in the world. I'm less inclined to think that that was a golden age and more just an accidental happy circumstance, but now that news is little more than glorified entertainment, the gatekeeper role has disappeared. If people* aren't interested in science, the news stations aren't going to show science, and that is a horrible, horrible shame. I'm glad the Internet is slowly strangling traditional media, and with it its hideous profit-driven model. But I do wish there was some way to retain the gatekeeper, even if it's no longer the role of the media. Teachers, maybe.
*the masses
Posted by: Sam Iam | December 4, 2008 3:23 PM
Thank's for heads up. Just deleted them from my bookmarks.
Posted by: frog | December 4, 2008 3:26 PM
Paul Brown: The nation's real internal dialogue was never on TV. The quality of thought, the level of debate is today so much better than what it was. We have the web now. And blogs like the ones here. You're watching the slow, wasting death of an obsolete business model that depended on obsolete technology. Nothing more.
Wow --- how disconnected. Yeah, the blogs etc fulfill a function for a specialized group. But the "bottom line" has always been the mass-media. Like the public schools, they never dug too deep --- but they guaranteed a minimum exposure for everyone.
The top is as smart, or smarter, than it ever was. But the hoi-polloi are being reduced to serfs. The elite universities have amazing training, while the lower tiers are less and less impressive, all the way through Ph.D. programs that produced techs. The top high-school students come out with years of college under their belt, while the rest rot in ignorance and buy a degree from The University of Phoenix.
You're watching the US become a third-world country, nothing less. The top 5% are the cream of the crop; the rest wallow in ignorance. Just like in any third-world country, where the elite are Harvard and Michigan educated (even Haiti's Baby Doc!), while the masses are ignorant and have no choice but to be servile.
Paul in short: "Let them eat cake!"
Posted by: Jello | December 4, 2008 3:27 PM
Yeah, the History channel has been sliding down hill for a long time. Every once in a while they produce a new program but half the time its just a rehash of old info amd the other half its some retched crap about Armageddon or Nostradomus or aliens. The rest of the time its just WWII over and over again.
Posted by: Tom Woolf | December 4, 2008 3:29 PM
Keep in mind that this is the same network that give Nancy Grace and hour or two each night to ask "Where's Caylee"? EVERY SINGLE NIGHT FOR WEEKS (months?) ON END.
Posted by: Darth Wader | December 4, 2008 3:30 PM
Tonight at 5pm UFO files, followed by UFO hunters, then MonsterQuest and then our weekly Nostradamus special.
I wrote the History Chanel to complain. They sent me a form letter politely telling me where I could shove it.
Posted by: chiral | December 4, 2008 3:36 PM
I haven't taken CNN seriously since I was a child.
Honestly though, is there any place where you can go in the mass media that has any decent science writing? I don't tend to even bother because it's so shallow and often misrepresents what science it's trying to review. I'm not convinced that CNN ever had any decent science reporting, so I'm not sure anything is being lost. However, I do think that the proper thing would have been to improve the science not cut it out. America is definitely declining, not because of outside influences, but because we've let ourselves be screwed over by anti-intellectuals.
Posted by: DGKnipfer | December 4, 2008 3:37 PM
Maybe we should all write the History Chanel. Lets get NatGO on the hit list as well as Discovery Chanel while we're at it. They're all on the slide lately.
Posted by: Sam | December 4, 2008 3:39 PM
#11, I think that's a fair assessment for those of us who have been fortunate enough to value critical thought.
When television, radio, or newspapers ran thoughtful, accurate, and concise news items, everyone listened, and everyone benefited from it.
Now that these mass medias blast ignorance, while we can turn to the internet for thoughtful discussion, most of the people in the United States will certainly not take the effort to find it. Because we live in a democracy this will, unfortunately, erode our own standards of living along with everyone else.
Posted by: Marc Abian | December 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Slightly tangental but I find a lot of news suffers from a severe lack of investigation. It's a repeat of the story the other paper had with different paragraphs.
I asssume most people here already see the repeated fallacies and mistakes in science reporting in the mainstream media. Another one I'm well familiar with is the lie that Scientology is the fastest gorwing religion, when census figures suggest it actually has roughly 1/20th of the followers it claims to have.
Posted by: Conor H. | December 4, 2008 3:41 PM
On a tenuously related note, I was reading about Lysenkoism on Wikipedia the other day and I told my dad that I could see something like that happening in this country in the near future; a load of crackpot pseudoscience taking over for legitimate science. No one else seems to care though.
Posted by: James | December 4, 2008 3:45 PM
@15 http://www.theonion.com/content/video/nasa_simulator_prepares
At least SOMEONE still covers science. ;)
James
Posted by: Badjuggler | December 4, 2008 3:48 PM
CNN was relevant in the 20th Century.
Posted by: Sarah Trachtenberg | December 4, 2008 3:49 PM
Is CNN replacing it with a pseudoscience unit?
I'm reminded of when Seventeen magazine got rid of their Sex section and replaced it with more astrology. Yeah, that's much more important.
Not My God
www.sarahtrachtenberg.com
Posted by: amphiox | December 4, 2008 3:50 PM
#58:
If the consequences are anything like what happened with Lysenkoism in the USSR, they will care. Eventually. Of course it will be too late then.
Posted by: Orac | December 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Nahhh. People are always interested in health and medicine because it affects every one of us. Unfortunately, these days the only medical stories people seem interested in are the fearmongering stories that hype up a health threat, feel-good stories about a person overcoming a horrible disease, or stories about alternative medicine. Health divisions at news stations are unlikely to disappear, but instead they'll be dumbed down like the rest of the news.
Posted by: Tony Lloyd | December 4, 2008 3:58 PM
Not just the BBC, Kelreth. This:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/C/catastrophe/index.html
is great. Tony Robinson (aka Baldrick in Blackadder) narrating a documentary on catastrophic events. The first program featured a CGI reconstruction of the moon's formation from Theia smashing into the earth. Very cool. Next up that mass extinction of bacteria and then "snowball earth". Loads of CGI, loads of facts and all showing how pseudo-science is just so boring and tame in comparison to the real thing.
I hope you guys in the states get a chance to see it.
Posted by: ndt | December 4, 2008 3:59 PM
...and nothing of value was lost.
Posted by: Tony Lloyd | December 4, 2008 4:00 PM
Not just the BBC, Kelreth. This:
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/C/catastrophe/index.html
is great. Tony Robinson (aka Baldrick in Blackadder) narrating a documentary on catastrophic events. The first program featured a CGI reconstruction of the moon's formation from Theia smashing into the earth. Very cool. Next up that mass extinction of bacteria and then "snowball earth". Loads of CGI, loads of facts and all showing how pseudo-science is just so boring and tame in comparison to the real thing.
I hope you guys in the states get a chance to see it.
Posted by: Kevpod | December 4, 2008 4:01 PM
What the heck do we need science education for, since Earth is only 6,000 years old?!?
Posted by: moother | December 4, 2008 4:04 PM
why am i not surprised to be reading this shit?
Posted by: rufustfirefly | December 4, 2008 4:20 PM
Nah, we don't don't science education or science news coverage because Jesus will be coming back soon.
Posted by: Lee Picton | December 4, 2008 4:28 PM
Every Sunday morning, I get a digest of science news in my email, and I linger over it for most of the morning. Everything from fossils to DNA or the latest studies in epidemiology or, well just about anything you can think of. It's free, too. This sort of thing would never be in the daily papers, because most of the articles require something called an attention span. Cerainly I get far more hard news over the internet than on the TV. I actually remember when CNN was THE place to go for news. Not any more. But there's some decent stuff on MSNBC; I am particularly taken these days by Rachel Maddow, the best instant synthesizer since Christianne Amanpour.
Posted by: Travis | December 4, 2008 4:34 PM
Tony Lloyd: Thanks for the heads up. I really am looking forward to that. I enjoyed his series The Worst Jobs In History. However I did not know he had worked on other series like Time Team and his current Crime and Punishment series. I'll have to look into both of those. thanks for mentioning him, I would not have looked him up and found out about those other series without you.
Posted by: Jonathon | December 4, 2008 4:39 PM
What makes this worse is the fact that CNN is going to launch a wire service to compete with AP. I heard a story on NPR yesterday talking about several newspapers that were going to switch to CNN because AP is much more expensive.
So, less science reporting. Wow. And here we live in the 21st Century. And we have to compete with other nations who take science and math education very seriously. Just. Damn.
Posted by: Die Anyway | December 4, 2008 4:44 PM
Rev. BDC, I usually enjoy your commentary but in re: "I love the anti-lawyer people. They rank up there with the Libertari...."
You know I get a lot of crap for being an atheist, an iconoclast and a general contrarian. It's really annoying to come to a blog that I otherwise enjoy and get trashed here too. I can take a good joke and light-hearted humor but the anti-libertarian bigotry shown by a few of the pharyngulitic hord is ... well... bigotry of the Bill O' variety. Rather unbecoming if I do say so myself.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | December 4, 2008 4:45 PM
While we're trashing tv channels, what's the deal with TLC? TLC officially stands for The Learning Channel, but I don't see how anyone can be learning anything from it.
My brother and I were having debating about this once. To demonstrate my point I turned on the TV and switched it there. We saw midgets playing soccer. The conversation was over after that.
The most entertaining thing though I ever saw on TLC was some dude lighting a piano on fire and then launching it from a catapault.
Now, I'm not saying TV shouldn't be showing midgets playing soccer or flying pianos on fire. I'm just saying don't do it under the name of The Learning Channel.
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 4, 2008 4:48 PM
It doesn't matter.
Occasionally every news outlet--newspapers, magazines, TV channels--will brag about the number of "science" stories they run, If you do the math, it's a pitifully small percentage, but it's worse than that--if you check them out, 99% aren't about science at all, but medicine. They don't know the difference, the public doesn't know the difference, and CNN is just like the rest of them.
If by some insane chance I do happen to see a TV news story about some real scientific matter, I'm pulling my hair out by the roots over the sheer imbecility of it; and I'm only an interested amateur. I don't know how some of you real scientists keep from having an aneurysm!
Posted by: rickflick | December 4, 2008 4:51 PM
What's CNN going to do when we revisit the moon? Well, they could let the sports department handle it.
Posted by: Travis | December 4, 2008 4:53 PM
TLC is one of my beefs as well. I remember it used to occasionally have some interesting programs on it but that was a very long time ago. I first encountered the work of James Burke on there when they played the wonderful The Day The Universe Changed, and all of the Connections series. But I cannot see them doing that now. All I ever see if I do flip past the channel are shows about weddings, big families, and other fluffy shows. Certainly not learning. Perhaps it should be rebranded.
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 4, 2008 4:55 PM
That's CCTV's job, anyway. The Chinese are going to beat us there; assuming we don't give up entirely, which we will.
Posted by: Randomfactor | December 4, 2008 5:00 PM
Betcha CNN still has a fully-staffed "religion" bureau...
Posted by: Tim Fuller | December 4, 2008 5:13 PM
BREAKING STORY....(honest to...GOD!!)
Christmas Elves vrs. Angry Parents!!
Get Your Christmas War ON! Details:
http://thetimchannel.com/?p=284
Enjoy.
Posted by: negentropyeater | December 4, 2008 5:14 PM
Reporting on Sciences should be about engaging people to think and developing critical reasoning.
TV News reporting is essentially about manufacturing consent.
Major mismatch.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 5:16 PM
We all know that "education programming" is quickly hurrying to the point where they would be on equal footing with Dora the Explorer and "baby einstiens"; it seems like we are trying to quicly get the populous to that 5th grade level of reading then stop them from going any further ("the hurry-up-and-lose" approach to critical thinking/reading &education). I hate to say "conspiracy", but our whole system seems to be based on as many people as possible being as stupid as can be functionally allowed.
That being said- what about the Science Channel?
Posted by: frog | December 4, 2008 5:17 PM
DieAnyway: I can take a good joke and light-hearted humor but the anti-libertarian bigotry shown by a few of the pharyngulitic hord is ... well... bigotry of the Bill O' variety. Rather unbecoming if I do say so myself.
Really? Thinking an ideology is ignorant, stupid, and dangerous is "bigotry"? I guess you're not "bigoted" against Stalinism or Maoism? This is the same kind of whining you get from Christians -- "It's prejudice".
No, it's not prejudice. It's plain old judgment, right or wrong. It's not bias or bigotry --- it's a serious disagreement about how the world works.
Whining is much more unbecoming.
Posted by: John C. Randolph | December 4, 2008 5:20 PM
I get science news almost entirely from the web, and two of my favorite sources are:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pubnews.php
and
http://www.technologyreview.com/
-jcr
Posted by: mayhempix | December 4, 2008 5:24 PM
Oh come on people!
Science is just an opinion and no one opinion is better than anyone else's.
Unless it's a relgious opinion of course... those are worth killing over.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 5:26 PM
Posted by: Lurkbot | December 4, 2008 4:55 PM
"What's CNN going to do when we revisit the moon? Well, they could let the sports department handle it.
--That's CCTV's job, anyway. The Chinese are going to beat us there; assuming we don't give up entirely, which we will."
If that's the case, we can kiss our economic asses goodbye:
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html
Thankfully this also leads back to this post!
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/11/lets_see_nasa_change.php
Posted by: Mike P | December 4, 2008 5:31 PM
@JCR #85,
Eurekalert is great for finding out about new stuff, but from an information perspective... well, I just prefer not to get most of my news from press releases.
Posted by: RickrOll | December 4, 2008 5:32 PM
Not all libertarians are stupid: Bill Maher, confessed libertarian. Though essentially i think it is the "Liberty" part of liberrtarian he cares about. He Always rails against big business and frequently employs us to look at Europe as a model of comparison. I don't see him as a person who advocates the "free invisible hand of the market." He hated that kind of crap coming from McCain! (Wow, it took me a long time to even remember his name- the signal it's time to move on, eh?)
Posted by: Ouchimoo | December 4, 2008 5:32 PM
Hm. I always viewed CNN as a slightly less worse version of Fox. But don't worry CNN, you're almost there!
RUN CNN, RUN!!
In true Gump style.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | December 4, 2008 5:35 PM
Libertarians could always stop being wrong.
Posted by: Lago | December 4, 2008 5:36 PM
"Freaky squid kin has elbows, long legs"
Wait. Wait, squid? Well, maybe they can stay."
Actually, they called it, "a relative of the squid." Think about that for a moment...
They also called the lateral fins on the squid, "Its ears." No, they didn't say those things that look like ears, but actually referred to them as its ears..
Posted by: MH | December 4, 2008 5:38 PM
But how can the BBC be better than the CNN? The later is an application of the free market, and the former is socialist!!!
Posted by: mayhempix | Dece