One Minute of Science Per Five Hours of Cable News

ideonexus writes "The Pew group has released its annual study into the state of news media. They conclude that science and technology content is a rare treat for cable newscast viewers; some five hours of programming could pass with the average viewer seeing only one minute of science news coverage."

junk science at that

[timmarhy]

I suspect the quality of that science is also very lacking....

Re:junk science at that

[klik]

yes, your sarcasm is right on the mark. There are religious people who are sensible and considered, and there are scientists with strong biases. But science as a system promotes the biases being noticed and removed from the understanding of a subject, whereas religions in general do not promote that kind of understanding - a few individual religious thinkers have shown good sense ( Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo come to mind - but their philosophies were derived from Platonic thought) but most end up integrating dumb ideas in to what usually starts as a decent religion and turn it in to a self-contradictory mess.

on the subject of the article, It would be interesting to see those sort of statistics by a regional and national breakdown. I am aware of some countries where inclination towards a scientific world view - and thus interest in the subject matter - is profoundly different to the US, where purposeful ignorance of proven fact simply because acceptance would require a change in lifestyle seems to be the norm.

(apologies for the train-of-thought format of my post)

Re:junk science at that

[SpecTheIntro]

There are religious people who are sensible and considered, and there are scientists with strong biases. But science as a system promotes the biases being noticed and removed from the understanding of a subject, whereas religions in general do not promote that kind of understanding - a few individual religious thinkers have shown good sense ( Thomas Aquinas and Augustine of Hippo come to mind - but their philosophies were derived from Platonic thought) but most end up integrating dumb ideas in to what usually starts as a decent religion and turn it in to a self-contradictory mess.

You are assuming that religion does not promote the exercise of reason and free will, when in fact this is patently untrue. Nearly all of the greatest scientists in history, prior to the modern era when we decided religion was for "teh craziez," were deeply religious men, and in fact their religion was a bulwark in how they approached science. The early Christian thinkers (I'm talking early, as in 2-300 A.D.) consistently stressed the necessity of exercising reason in faith. Early Islamic thinkers operated the same way, believing that the gift of free will and reason were not only blessings from the Creator but obligations to humanity in their exercise. (Although the Islamic question of free will is a very nuanced one, and honestly a bit confusing--this coming from an Iranian Muslim, mind you.) There is, nowadays, an overriding sentiment that because a.) religious institutions were corrupted and b.) people are generally stupid, that somehow this means religion promotes closed-mindedness. But any actual study of scripture and theology will often quite clearly paint a different picture. Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are not theologians. Neither is Ahmadinejad, for that matter, and even Khameini, fundamentalist as he is, is remarkably pro-science. (Again, a consequence of following the doctrines of his religion. His sin is that he interprets as narrowly as he can when it comes to the social order.)

It annoys me to no end that the world is becoming both anti-religious and anti-intellectual. And the longer we go, the more "religious" science becomes, with any dissidents in the community ostracized because of their beliefs, rather than their evidence. This movement towards "consensus" in scientific thought is absolutely horrifying: I don't give a shit if one hundred million scientists "agree" that it looks like x is happening; consensus is the antithesis of good science. Either the studies support you, or they don't--and the methodology of those studies should be attacked with such virulence that there can be no doubt remaining that they are valid. Instead, we have a cartel of scientific bodies that exists solely to insulate its members from real scrutiny, and react with the vehemence of the Inquisition if anyone dares to question the results they provide. It's disgusting.

Re:junk science at that

[theStorminMormon]

Spec is definitely on to something here. And I think it comes down to defining religion and science in terms of their function to society as opposed to their content or methodologies.

Inherently religion is supposed to guide people to God/salvation/enlightenment/etc. That is it's stated purpose. But in terms of historical function religion became a powerful political force and for that reason was corrupted. It was easy to exploit religious concepts (especially authority) to subvert a system ostensibly about progression into a system that was in actuality about domination. But the domination was no intrinsic to religious theology, it was intrinsic to any human institution viewed as authoritative.

I would go even farther and say that politico-religion is directly opposed to theological-religion. It's not that there's something wrong with organized religion, per se, it's that organized religion is just too tempting a target for hijacking. And since religions have been around for several thousand years there has been a constant war of attrition as religious powers grew and encompassed political, economic, and military realms.

The antidote to this, or so it at first appeared, was the Enlightenment and the age of reason. Science directly undercut the authority of religion by providing answers to the kinds of questions religion was supposed to provide answer to that had more explanatory power. As a result, the religious sphere of influence became drastically restricted, religious power in the political, economic, and military realms was curtailed, and therefore religion was a less potent vehicle of political domination.

The tragedy is that science itself has come to be the new vehicle of political domination. Just as there's an inherent conflict between politico-religion and theological-religion, there's an emerging concept between politico-science and rational-science.

So while there's a great hullaballoo about the conflict between religion and science the real conflict has always been and always will be the conflict between reason and domination. Religion has a bad name these days, and most people who speak negatively of it are referring the political version of it, the "blind faith", anti-rational version of religion. But if the definition of religion is "a series of untestable and unverifiable dogmas which are adhered to with irrational zeal" than science itself is in serious danger of becoming religion.

Re:junk science at that

[Col Bat Guano]

"But if the definition of religion is "a series of untestable and unverifiable dogmas which are adhered to with irrational zeal" than science itself is in serious danger of becoming religion." And of course this is completely bass-ackwards. Religion and science are antithetical. Religion is based on untestable claims and dogma. Science is based on repeatable observations for gathering facts, and theory to provide a consistent framework to explain them. The earlier poster bemoaned the fact that religion is seen as antithetical to science, but the fundamental belief of testability in science is simply missing in religion. It would be interesting to see why science is "in serious danger of becoming a religion". I think science is great because -it works-. Religion on the other hand...

Re:

[MozeeToby]

I agree with you that consensus is bad science; unfortunatly, most subjects in science have gone far beyond what I have the time, money, and intellegence to fully understand.

I don't have time to research global warming to the point that I understand all the nuances of the theory. Even if I did, I don't have the money for a computer to run the simulations myself. I am forced to accept the opinion of the poeple who do have the resources to do the research.

The problem is, the issues can then be clouded by po

Re:

[Belial6]

Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.

I do agree with your analysis of what is happening today with the whole "consensus" thing. Just listen to the number of people who claim there is

Re:

[SpecTheIntro]

Your confused by that whole cause-effect thing. The link between early religion and science is not that religion caused science, it was that money caused science, and religion caused money. The religions direct contact with science was to stifle it. It's just that when the money got to be enough, the science happened whether the religion wanted it to or not.

While I appreciate the point you are trying to make, this is not true. The early theologians were not rich, and yet if you read their works they very

Re:

[SpecTheIntro]

Either that or they just didn't want to get into any trouble, all with the inquisition, the witch burning, the being turned into an outcast, etc. In that kind of society, where is the advantage in that?...

Again, you need to look past the institutions and return to the source material. Take, for example, the problem of slavery. There is no doubt that many Christian clergymen helped facilitate and sustain the slave trade. But the Bible is very clearly against slavery, and many prominent theologians spoke ou

Re:

[SpecTheIntro]

No there aren't. Any sensible and considered person will soon lose their religion.

Right. Because that kind of statement doesn't make you look dogmatic or irrational at all.

The universe outside religion is so self-consistent and the evidence-based reasoning we use to solve all of our basic problems in life, as active scientists, or simply as humans trying to get through the day, is so overwhelmingly powerful compared to _anything_ that religious beliefs can do that any reasonable person with more than hal

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

Lots of historical places and events reported in the bible are true.

Some of them are versions of older true stories found in older religions and stories in the region.
Some of them are unprovable and indistinguishable from madness.

There is lots of good advice and the christian religion helped it's followers survive and prosper rather than die out so it is overall beneficial to its followers.

However, some things appear very unlikely. It is very unlikely that the entire earth really was flooded underwater an

It's probably a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The minute of news is most probably completely wrong anyway.

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

If you think science news has it tough, true news has it worse with one minute out of 24 hours. Even then sharpshooters are standing by to shoot it down to protect the American public from itself.

Re:

[demachina]

Science and technology junkies don't need to feel bad. Its pretty tough to get more than a minute of news in five hours for anything but the latest murder or kidnapping of some pretty young white girl, the latest on Brittany and Paris, and hour after hour of campaign coverage. Cable news is only going to cover news that gets them ratings, not what is important. Unfortunately the female demographic overwhelming wants sordid crime stories, preferably involving pretty young white women as the victim. They al

The Pew group?

[FoolsGold]

Tag this article "pewpewpew".

I'm so sorry, really. I'll go now.

Re:

[sm62704]

I'm so sorry, really. I'll go now.

And I get flamed for linking Uncyclopedia! [uncyclopedia.org] (actually that link is on topic. Kinda. Well hell, how 'bout UnNews:Stars must "check science facts" [uncyclopedia.org]?

Gees, tough room.

Would they care?

[Swizec]

It seems to me that the average television viewing person couldn't care less about science news. Unless it's groundbreaking and will most definitely change their lives they don't care and if it does, well then it's in the news anyway.

Be honest, how many average people do you know who might care about a galaxy eating another galaxy ... and then again ... if memory serves I saw that on the news a few days after it was on Slashdot because the pictures were pretty.

News networks don't care about news, they care about viewership.

Re:

[drsquare]

Be honest, how many average people do you know who might care about a galaxy eating another galaxy

Is that really news if it happened millions of years ago?

huh?

[apodyopsis]

FTFA: From 5 hours:

* 35 minutes about campaigns and elections
* 36 minutes about the debate over U.S. foreign policy
* 26 minutes or more of crime
* 12 minutes of accidents and disasters
* 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment

On the other hand, one would have seen:

* 1 minute and 25 seconds about the environment
* 1 minute and 22 seconds about education
* 1 minute about science and technology
* 3 minutes and 34 seconds about the economy

Or to put that in perspective...

1 hour 11 minutes of campaigns. elections and foreign policy and then.. only 4 minutes 56 seconds on education and economy!!?

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand. How else to the politicians intend to persuade you lot to vote?

Re:

[faloi]

Since most politicians have been pitifully inadequate, it actually helps them to have a lot of time spent on barely scratching the surface of very complex subjects coupled with them discussing how pitiful the other politicians are (regardless of the fact that their views are almost lockstep with one another). If in-depth information of value ever really got out to the public at large, I'm willing to bet that most politicians currently in power would be looking for some new jobs.

Re:

[IBBoard]

Five hours of news and only 10 minutes of celebs? Based on most UK news that seems far too low. We borrow things like American Idol from the US and our TV is excessively Celebrity-centric, so what news channel were they watching that wasn't?!

Re:

[CastrTroy]

I would have said the same thing, based on Canadian news. I guess it depends which news program you are watching. You don't get much celeb news if you watch the CBC, but you do tend to get a lot of it on some other networks.

Re:

[jrumney]

Paris Hilton was out of town on the day they did the survey.

Re:

[ashitaka]

Ummm, you do realize that American Idol is based on the British program "Pop Idol" and that many of the classic American programs that Yanks get nostalgic about are based on British programs:

Steptoe and Son begat Sanford and Son.
Til Death US Do Part begat All in the Family
etc.

Re:

[IBBoard]

Shows how interesting I found it. Thinking about it, we're responsible for Big Brother as well.

Why is all of our TV so terrible? Why are we so obsessed with "wannabe celebs"? And why do we get so much press about actual celebs doing stupid things?

OJ Simpson getting chased for potential murder or whatever - news. Amy Winehouse getting caught doing drugs again - not news (and better suited to the radio where I don't have to look at her face). Heath Ledger found dead - news. Heather Mills making millions out o

Cable news is the same as politics

[Shivetya]

As for the politician question, for those of us Americans we should have all received from the IRS our official "Politician Relection Act" statement, aka the Economic Stimulus Package. Opening that up and reading who qualified was a big kick in the nuts for those who actually work. Then again those who pay the majority of taxes are already going to vote, the politicians need those others who don't normally vote; too lazy to do so - a general reflection on their other daily activities; and so checks needed to go out with a glorification of government for providing the money.

Politicians do not want an educated public. They want votes, ignorant people vote out of emotion more so than facts and as such they play to those ignorances. They play on bigotry, class envy, fear, and hatred. The news media caters to them, hell their story lineup pretty much is the same thing.

We talk about science and technology but rarely act on them. Its all the rage in schools until Little Susy gets a D then we can't have those subjects anymore because someone isn't capable of keeping pace and suddenly we are more concerned about feelings than getting them up to speed. We don't celebrate the leaders and achievers in school because it hurts other people's feelings. As such we don't emphasize areas which do require dedication and work : namely sciences and math. Cable news will cater to that as well, this is the American Idol generation.

The best thing about American Idol is that losers are shown and the winners celebrated. If we took that achievement equates to success ethic back to the schools then perhaps the kids would want something different out of the news when they grow into adults.

Mod parent up

[TheMeuge]

For the love of whatever deity, please mod parent "Insightful", for it appears that American society has deteriorated a great deal in the last 50 years, when it comes to public perception of science and technology. You know, science used to be a prestigious profession, and used to be respected. Now, the only persistent emotions I see towards science and technology is spite. Our youth has become fat and lazy... complacent and arrogant. We are allowing subsequent generations to grow dumber than the next!

Re:

[penguin_dance]

You know, science used to be a prestigious profession, and used to be respected. Now, the only persistent emotions I see towards science and technology is spite.

Unfortunately, I think that's in part because science has jumped into the political realm, sometimes unintentionally, sometimes intentionally. Global warming, stem cell research, cloning, take your pick. Science is becoming a tool of the governments. And it no longer places ethical boundaries on itself. Environmentalism for some has become the new,

Re:ethical boundaries

[TheMeuge]

I disagree with your judgment of "ethical boundaries". You must be buying too much either into the media coverage of science, or the religious propaganda against it. Let me avail you of your fears. As a biomedical scientist, I can tell you that now, the ethical restrictions that the scientific community has imposed upon itself, are far stricter than ever before in history. If you don't realize, perhaps you should consider that B.F. Skinner experimented on his daughter.

In the end, we have to either trust the

Re:

[penguin_dance]

As a biomedical scientist, I can tell you that now, the ethical restrictions that the scientific community has imposed upon itself, are far stricter than ever before in history. If you don't realize, perhaps you should consider that B.F. Skinner experimented on his daughter.

I also realize that companies today are benefiting from experiments and research done by the Nazi's in WWII. Makes you stop and think the next time you see a Bayer commercial for insecticide. Yes, they discovered aspirin, but they also d

Re:ethical boundaries

[Dhalka226]

I also realize that companies today are benefiting from experiments and research done by the Nazi's in WWII.

So what? Meh, I'll get back to this.

What I see today is global lawmakers seeming to have to set limits on how far they're willing to let their scientists go

Close. You see lawmakers choosing to do so, so that they can campaign on how moral they are and how evil their opponents are because (gasp!) not everybody has an identical set of beliefs or an identical moral code. And they do it for the same reasons you bring out, which are entirely the wrong reasons.

And what if they're successful? While their method might be condemned, their results would certainly be used.

Because there is no such thing as bad knowledge, merely bad people and bad applications. If I find a cure for cancer by disemboweling babies and feeding them to terrorists, I should go to jail--and other scientists should be absolutely jumping on my discoveries to determine what the hell I was doing that ended up working, and if there's a way to duplicate the effect in a more ethical manner. Anybody who suggests waving their hands and going, "no, wait! We can't use that knowledge, it was discovered in a bad way!" is, sorry, an idiot.

I obviously don't condone what the Nazis did, but the idea that we shouldn't use their results is absurd. Even if you want to frame it as a purely ethical argument, why not make the horrible deaths or maimings of these people mean something if their suffering truly did lead to discoveries that are going to help other people?

I also think it's pretty obvious that some contries, such as China, don't share our level of ethics when it comes to human experimentation.

I certainly can't deny it. The fallacy in that argument is the assumption that ours are the correct set of ethics in all cases, or even that there is an "our;" it seems like just in a sample set of you and me that we could sit down and identify a number of significant differences.

The problem with ethics is that people have them because they believe they are the best. If I thought some other ethical concept was superior to my own, I would adopt it as my own. In other words: Most people are entirely unwilling to even acknowledge the idea that somebody else may be as right as they are. Anybody who has studied ethics in a meaningful way understands there are a ridiculous number of theories of how to determine the "right" set of ethics, and that many of those theories either have what most people consider glaring holes (simple utilitarianism may support the Nazi's actions for example) or come to alternate conclusions given the exact same set of input data. Ethics are not a simple thing, nor are they a concrete thing. Simply putting them to a "vote" (choosing the system of the majority, or even allowing elected officials to dictate them down to scientists) is faulty on many levels.

Most religions see life as beginning at conception. So to grow a blastocyst to harvest stem cells is no different than aborting a 6-month embryo and doing so--it not only smacks of playing God, but of another queasy ability to easily kill some humans to benefit others.

I think your true rationale has come out; your religious views contradict some scientific ideas.

So okay, most religions may define the beginning of life to be conception and, as of yet, most people in the US remain in some way religious. What meaningful conclusions does that allow us to draw about whether or not stem-cell research is right or wrong? I can trot out all the same examples of times religions have been horrifically wrong, or done terrible things to people itself--but I suspect you know them anyway, so there's no point there. And contrary to what religious people think of themselves and their religions, they do not own morality and (especially giv

Re:

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

"How else to the politicians intend to persuade you lot to vote?"

I vote in the time-honored tradition of who talks the loudest in the debates. I have no clue what they're talking about, but they couldn't possibly get all that applause unless they had just made some awesome point, could they?

Re:

[kamapuaa]

An equally valid way to interpret those numbers is that people tend to get certain types of information from other sources than Cable TV News. With economics, there's the Internet, there's Newspapers, there's cable TV stations entirely dedicated to economic news, and so forth. General-purpose Cable TV News is not intended or perceived as a person's sole resource on the current state of the world today.

Re:

[Kiaser Zohsay]

* 35 minutes about campaigns and elections
* 36 minutes about the debate over U.S. foreign policy
* 26 minutes or more of crime
* 12 minutes of accidents and disasters
* 10 minutes of celebrity and entertainment

Some news stories fit into multiple categories, so we get to see 71 minutes (elections + crime + celebrity) worth of pictures of Spitzer's call girl.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re:

[mapkinase]

We had more scientific talk on TV in USSR than US now. One of the most popular programs was "Obvious and Impossible".

But more striking contrast could be observed if you look at the printed subscription media. We had "Science and Life", immensely popular "Chemistry and Life", very popular hands-on "Technology to the Youth". The technology oriented journals had all kind of fun stuff besides technology as well: sci-fi fiction, funny stories, funny pictures.

All that crap we have now in Russia: tabloids, glamour

Re:

[apodyopsis]

I would of thought the two would of gone hand in hand.

I would have thought the two would have gone hand in hand.

There, fixed that for you. Maybe you should watch more educational programming.

Oh I totally agree.

But as I would need to watch 204.5 hours of cable for 1 hour of educational content I don't think my will power is up to it.

Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[tgd]

Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore...

Re:

[malsdavis]

"Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore..."

Agreed. Discovery Channel no longer seem to show science programs of post-kindergarten level anymore.

If I see one more 'professor' explaining a concept which most 6-year olds would find obvious, as if the concept is something the viewer may struggle to grasp, I think I'm going to be sick.

Re:

[value_added]

Its still more than you get on the Discovery Channel anymore...

Which ain't much. The closest I've ever come to being informed was watching hour-long interviews on The Charlie Rose Show [wikipedia.org] on PBS.

A random sampling of guests include Dr. Paul Nurse and Dr. James Watson [charlierose.com], E.O. Wilson [charlierose.com], Jane Goodall [charlierose.com], Carl Sagan [charlierose.com], Noam Chomsky [charlierose.com], and Linus Torvalds [charlierose.com]. Many of them have appeared multiple times.

Natalie Portman is in there too, but I'm not sure how scientific an interview with her could be.

Re:Well, at least you can say one good thing...

[ashitaka]

Natalie Portman is in there too, but I'm not sure how scientific an interview with her could be.

She could discuss the application of elevated temperature corn porridge to the unclothed human anatomy resulting in loss of motor functions due to extreme fear.

Re:

[kerohazel]

This needs to be said:
http://xkcd.com/397/ [xkcd.com]

Now, granted, it's not science *news*. But it's still science.

Enticement

[camperdave]

People think that the commercials are there to entice you to buy the product. In fact, the shows are there to entice you to spend time in front of the TV. Broadcasters aren't in business to entertain. They are selling viewership to advertisers. Their product isn't the show. Their product is viewer attention, and the shows are how they attract viewers. This includes the news. The broadcasters learned long ago that controversy and disaster attract much more viewers than science, and good news. The news isn't there to inform and enlighten, it is there so they can sell air time.

Re:

[pgn674]

Does /. do the same?

I know, one liner replies suck. But, this other line commenting about the one-liner property of this post destroys said property. There's a lesson in that... ...maybe.

Re:

[melikamp]

Don't feel bad about how short your reply is. Or thin, rather, since adding more lines would make it thicker. It is not all about size. Some men can do more with their tiny one-liners than others with long beefy paragraphs. And when that happens, other men take notice. Not me, though. I am just a well-wisher, in that I do not wish you any specific harm.

Re:

[jackbird]

Actually, that business model is more or less explicitly not supposed to include the news programming. The broadcasters got their monopoly of the airwaves way back when at least partially in exchange for a promise that some portion of their programming would serve the public good (i.e. news).

The advent of TV news divisions being expected to make a profit, and the attendent nosedive in journalistic standards, is fairly recent. Watch Network [imdb.com] now and it's hard to see how outrageous a satire the proto-reali

Re:

[camperdave]

We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who comes on at five.
She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam in her eye.
Its interesting when people die - Give us dirty laundry.

The advent of TV news divisions being expected to make a profit, and the attendent nosedive in journalistic standards, is fairly recent.

Things have changed with the ubiquitousness of cable and satellite tv. Back in days of yore, each station broadcast the news at the same time, so there was pretty much no point in channel su

Re:

[Herkum01]

I think that you are wrong, it is EASIER and CHEAPER to produce a story about a disaster or controversy than it is about science. You have to be willing to spend some time about science in order to engage a viewer.

News today is more about press releases and quick quotes, hell the news media does not really bother fact checking most of the time, which is stupid in a age where information is more available than any other time in history.

Calling science's bluff

[Goffee71]

Go on then, with all the money that science gets for R&D, why doesn't the scientific community use a tiny part of it to launch its own channel covering 'proper' science.

But, oh no, scientists everywhere suddenly claim poverty and, anyway, are far too busy tinkering with the LHC, latest mega-laser and juggling bacteria.

Anyway, you only get covered in the media if you spend money on it.
Science isn't sexy for 98.2% of the western world (i looked it up)
With religious loonies running much of the

Re:

[JohnFluxx]

Well a lot of scientists do end up lecturing some of the week. And there's barely enough to time to do that.

That study is whack

[smchris]

When I watch the "noos" I see stories about high achieving high school students, cats saved from fires, Paris Hilton, the latest actor picked up for drunk driving. the annual arrival of Girl Scout cookies, plucky disabled people, gang shootings, BS, BS, BS.

So, out of the five hours of "news" broken down by foreign affairs, domestic affairs, campaign '08, etc. did they actually have to watch 50 hours of "noos"?

ok, but...

[ack154]

How about another study not so close to a presidential-election year? Not that I expect the science/education/etc coverage to increase dramatically in other circumstances, but of course it's going to be a lot of campaign coverage.

Why is it so bad?

[Evil Pete]

I know that TV fosters a dumbing down of society and trashing of the image of those in the sciences. But here in Australia we actually had a period of time when science and science reporting was highly regarded. It has slipped a bit lately but the ABC [abc.net.au] still has a Science Week where almost every TV and radio program tries to inject Science into the format. And TripleJ [abc.net.au] still has Dr Karl answering science questions every week (unless he's too busy doing Sleek Geeks [abc.net.au]). Maybe it is the non-existence of a strong equivalent of the ABC or BBC. Because science reporting is popular, just not as popular as other things. What I guess I am trying to say is the current situation wherever you are is not inevitable. Just as the current slide here is not inevitable -- science has given way to the unbelievably boring discussions on 'renovations'. Crap.

this isn't top down

[circletimessquare]

this is bottom up. if msnbc suddenly reports more on science in more amounts of time your average slashdotter finds acceptable, msnbc's ratings go down. believe me, if they went up, you'd see 20 minutes every hour of the day devoted to science on cnn, msnbc, and even fox

the real issue here then is that your average joe blow just doesn't care that much about science, not some sort of weird pact by cable news shows to keep everyone stupid

and to go further than that, many will see failure in society, in politics, because joe blow isn't so interested in things your average slashdotter is. well, that's your vanity speaking, not your intelligence. why is your science-centric viewpoint superior than the viewpoint of joe blow? what is your objective reason for believing that?

where is the objective measure that says someone massively interested in science would make a better citizen? many people here are certain of that idea, but plenty of people are also prejudiced to their own particular worldview and agenda. that's you i'm speaking to, you who sees little interest in science as a sort of travesty. it's not. it simply isn't. get over yourself

the truth is, just not that many people are interested in science, were interested science, or ever will be interested in science. in any time period, in any country. get used to it. the world does not revolve around your biases towards a lot of interest in science, so this idea that few people are interested in science is not in any way a bad thing, it's just the way it is, and you would be doing yourself a favor by simply accepting that and moving on, rather than crying into your milk about some sort of travesty that isn't really a travesty at all

Re:

[sm62704]

this is bottom up. if msnbc suddenly reports more on science in more amounts of time your average slashdotter finds acceptable, msnbc's ratings go down.

No, if they present the news in an uninteresting or nonunderstandable way the ratings go down. Most high school kids hate science class because "science is boring." Well, science isn't boring, their science teacher is boring!

If you have some ignorant dumbass who hates science because his science teacher put everyone to sleep then yes, ratings will go down. B

That's right

[Rik Sweeney]

and you know what that 1 minute is. It's that bloody shampoo advert featuring the latest teen starlet stating: "here comes the science"

Slashdot, because you're worth it.

This is a good thing.

[DynaSoar]

I've seen that one minute per five hours. It sucks. It's usually so dumbed down that even when it's right it's so bad that it might was well be wrong.

Put science news on the science and other educational channels. Science channel(s), Discovery, History channel(s), National Geographic, NASA channel -- it's not like there's a complete lack of sources. If people want it, they'll go looking. If they can't handle it, they won't watch it and don't need it.

And don't give me any "the kids" nonsense. If kids need science, they need something better than news channels present. They need education, which means keeping them engaged, which means decent production. They're not prepared for science news yet. They're still in the stage where half hour shows with a few interesting longer stories are better for them. Besides, they don't need everything on TV. There's plenty of sources of science news that they can read. They're supposed to be doing that too.

Re:This is a good thing.

[TheGrumpster]

The sad thing is that even many of the science and education channels have now been dumbed down to where they are often of little interest. Remember when TLC was "The Learning Channel" instead of the "Flip This House Channel"? Remember when the History Channel actually discussed history? Now even semi-respectable channels like Geographic are showing crap like "Search for Bigfoot" and "Doomsday Prophecies of the Bible". The networks aren't stupid. They know where their audience is. Why else do you think the channel formerly known as "CNN Headline News" that used to show a nice summary of the major stories in a half-hour is now nothing but four hours of some idiot blabbing about the latest Britney Spears fiasco? I know it's a sign of my old age, but seriously, the only television worth watching is an occasional show like Nova or Frontline on PBS, and sometimes something on CSPAN. As for the rest, it's all trash. The new dark ages indeed.

Re:

[jmorris42]

> Remember when TLC was "The Learning Channel?
> Remember when the History Channel actually discussed history?

Yes it is tied to the dumbing down of everything, but it is also something else. Not sure what the drive is, but look at the cable channels today vs a decade or so back. In the beginning the promise of cable/sat was lots of focused channels catering to niches that broadcast TV couldn't serve. So we had news channels that just did news, music channels that were 24 hours of music, science chan

Training is everything

[oDDmON oUT]

And make no mistake about it, viewers are being trained by what, and how, they watch from a very early age. News programming is only one facet of that.

If you're trained to only accept information in time units no larger than the average bowel movement, the chances that you will think critically about any given subject are reduced immmensely.

This works especially well for marketers and companies intent on your "consuming" their products, and for those who have the motives of a three card monte dealer.

Which points up the critical importance of your tax dollars being used to insure everyone has access [doc.gov] to the "glass [images-amazon.com] teat [images-amazon.com]".

Bread and circuses anyone?

And I bet that 1 minute of "science"

[WCMI92]

Is related to the whole "man made global warming" hoax.

Which is junk science at it's worst.

hmmm

[thatskinnyguy]

That's because if the general public were to even begin to understand the magic concepts of Science, their heads would explode. Small doses like this keep them informed, yet it keeps everything "Scientific" still magical.

Have you ever tried to explain how something works to someone? I mean, I have to use analogies with elves, envelopes, and a giant series of tubes to explain how the interwebs work! I still end-up with a deer in the headlights stare.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[trongey]

...you're probably far better off just sat there on you fat backside cramming crisps and canned beer into your mouth...

I can't think of any topic where this statement would not be true.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Good news /bad news

[sm62704]

some five hours of programming could pass with the average viewer seeing only one minute of science news coverage."

That would only be bad news if their reporting was factual and accurate, but they can hardly report on anything science-related without making some glaring error that any high school student should know is wrong.

It makes me wonder about their reporting on other aspects.

Even worse is the abysmal state of "educational" TV. One reason I dropped cable (besides the annual rate hike gougings) is chan

Unfortunately...

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

Unfortunately, that one minute of cable science news happens to occur on Fox News, where they present the latest evidence pointing to babies as the source of all terrorism, or the newest findings confirming that the Pyramids were built with the use of dinosaurs.

so what?

[presarioD]

what does this "study" prove? That if only cable networks included more "scientific" coverage in their content Jesus would be happy and the "dumbing down of america" averted for good? Give me a break! Scientists and scientific thinking (aka critical thinking) are not produced by watching a flashy tube like an idiot . It's a derivative of hard intellectual work.

Next study to follow: Save america from obesity, petition your cable provider for more health/workout related content you can watch while wolfing do

Obligatory Carl Sagan Quote

[dankstick]

"We have designed our civilization based on science and technology and at the same time arranged things so that almost no one understands anything at all about science and technology. This is a clear prescription for disaster."

-Carl Sagan, 1995 Interview with Anne Kalosh

Misread that headline

[Anonymous Meoward]

For a minute, I thought it read "one minute of SILENCE for five hours of cable news".

If only.

The divide...

[Deliveranc3]

between most science and technology is such that we only get a minute amout of the former on /,

Slashdot is a brilliant news source with brilliant contributers but still...

I've found myself going to conferences to get my fix...

Nanotechnology promises to unite chemistry, engineering and biology... Quantum mechanics will re-write physics and philosophy...

The only hard sciences, that can be practiced without millions of dollars of funding, are mathmatics and information science.

Re:

[colmore]

No, Math is expensive too. People haven't done it for free since all mathematicians were wealthy and their names began with "Lord." Also, modern math uses supercomputers to guess at truth before it proves it. We're pretty certain that the R-Z hypotheses is true because it's been tested for trillions and trillions of solutions by pricey computers (and pricey mathematical computer scientists).

Someone with the chops to be a mathematician can in general do much more profitable things with their time. A high

does health & medicine count

[peter303]

Health stories most nightly on the network news. They lternative between fear stories of new diseases and hopes of new cures.

And if you add in all the drug commercials, its maybe a third of the newscast :-)

Profit not Inform

[harl]

Cable news networks are not in business to inform or educate. Cable news networks are in business to make a profit. They show what will get asses in chairs. Any informing or education is purely ancillary.

Slashdot

[kninja]

Slashdot seems to cover the market that would care about this.

Get a Subscription to Scientific American

[ponraul]

People typically don't watch cable news to learn about the latest scientific and technological advances; it's moving wall paper that they can watch while half distracted. If you really care about being informed beyond USA Today style graphs and the headlines, try a newspaper, magazine or the Internet. With the increasing availability of broadband Internet connections, functional literacy is essentially optional; there are few barriers to "learning" about pop-science or pop-technology. Complaining about the

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:consequences...

[Culture20]

I think you're confusing a couple ancient greeks with _all_ ancient greeks.

Re:

[sm62704]

We're doomed to extinction if we don't stimulate the growth of genuine creativity and curiosity towards science and nature

A species' survival doesn't hings on how intelligent its members are, it depends on procreation. We're not going to become extinct because we're stupid, if we become extinct it will be because of some global catastrophe that we, ourselves, will likely cause.

And it will be a catastrophe that couldn't have occurred had we not been smart enough to make atom bombs, automobiles, electricity,

Re:

[Eivind]

True enough.

But -some- global disasters may be better dealt with by smarter people.

I don't think it's very likely that humanity will die out in the next few hundred years. It's much more likely that we suffer huge catastrophies of some kind, and that intelligence and resourcefulness determines if 1 million people die or 1 billion.

Which makes a difference, but ain't precisely about extinction seeing as we're several billion people.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

Think of the earth as a very large easter island or haiti without UN food aid.

Dumb people create catastrophes too-- they just do it by overbreeding, stripping the entire area of food, and then suffering 99% mortality rates.

Your basic point is extremely valid however.

Re:

[garett_spencley]

Drama and Reality TV != Cable News

And I really hope you're not making the implication that someone who watches drama and/or reality TV would not watch the news.

Re:

[Comboman]

Drama and Reality TV != Cable News

And I really hope you're not making the implication that someone who watches drama and/or reality TV would not watch the news.

I think the implication was that we wouldn't expect to see science on drama or reality TV so why would we expect it on the news? I'm sure there's less than 1 minute of election coverage per 5 hours on the Discovery Channel.

Re:

[mikael]

I also know family with digital TV who will filter news themselves and only catch the bits the want.

We have retired relatives who will change to a different channel as soon as a news article on animal cruelty is aired. Even if the poor critter has recovered and running around in a green field or there is no video, the channel still gets changed. Anyone in the room who objects is regarded as some twisted animal sadist.

There was one family who kept the TV as a status symbol only, in their best room, which wa

Re:

[value_added]

That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?

I'm afraid the same could be said of "Science TV", which regularly consist of 4 parts drama and reality, and 1 part science, the latter typically consisting mostly of indirect references to science.

My guess is that the programming folks fear that people wouldn't otherwise watch. If that's the case, then they've certainly overcome any fear that their viewers would be turned off by an overabundance of specia

Re:

[Atzanteol]

The history buffs have it better.

I don't think so... Just yesterday I was watching a show on Noah's Ark. And later a show on the "Real" Jesus!

Re:

[PitaBred]

The problem is that they get higher ratings if they dumb it down. Make it more accessible to everyone, and more people will watch. If you show things too complicated, most people aren't interested enough to keep watching. My fiancee and I love watching Alton Brown because he injects science into his show, as well as goofy theatrics, but one of her relatives actually said that he doesn't like Alton BECAUSE of the science content. He still wants a new computer though... most people don't care about the sc

Re:

[Ngarrang]

I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science. The articles are traps anyway. That aside, people tend to watch drama and reality TV, are we surprised there isn't any science there?

While I must admit to my love of CSI (the original series) and Law & Order, I easily watch far more Science Channel, Discovery Channel, History Channel, Smithsonian Channel and HD Theater Channel. With that, I am exposing my kids to a steady diet of science.

Re:

[CastrTroy]

I personally watch a lot more drama and comedy than science myself. Does that mean I don't get enough science in my life? Well, not really, I get most of my science exposure from the internet. By the time they produce a show on it, it's already old news. I find that reading stuff online is a far better way to get my daily intake of science.

Re:

[Ngarrang]

I personally watch a lot more drama and comedy than science myself. Does that mean I don't get enough science in my life? Well, not really, I get most of my science exposure from the internet. By the time they produce a show on it, it's already old news. I find that reading stuff online is a far better way to get my daily intake of science.

True, the internet is more up to date, but a series like "Blue Planet" makes such science more visually appealing. This may illustrate some laziness on my part, actually. While I am not adverse to reading a book about particle physics, I enjoy sitting and NOT having to read dry text. The stuff on TV may bring up areas of knowledge I had not read. So, I guess the moral of this story is to use multiple sources.

Re:

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I think the average slashdot user can spend as much time on slashdot and read even less than a minutes worth of science.

Perhaps in the Politics and YRO sections, which to be fair is one of the few places which even airs such stories anymore. But over the rest of the site, (I exclude "Games" here) the signal to noise ratio remains high. In any tech related story, this site is still lucky to have multiple knowledgeable users, armed with urls, who can help shed light on any topic, and usually from more than on

Re:

[WilyCoder]

Clearly you haven't seen CSI. Not only is science, it is cutting edge science. I'm amazed that a TV show can do science better than they can in a university! Its like a mix of uber-science AND reality!

Ahem, its a joke people!

Re:

[sm62704]

Who of the unwashed masses wants to think when watching TV?

The topic isn't "reality TV", it's news. You could say the same thing about political news. Nobody wants to think when they're watching The Simpsons, but they want to be educated when they're watching Nova. They want to be informed when watching the news.

Re:

[Mateo_LeFou]

"They want to be informed when watching the news."

Slight correction: they want to feel as though they're being informed when watching the news. Cf
http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html [peirce.org]

Re:

[sm62704]

Judging from the cuts in staff, cuts in schedule time and content shift seen in news programs, I'll stand by my assertion

You're talking about entertainment network news (Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc), not MSNBC or CNN. Do you have links to sources that back up the assertation that CNN has cut schedule time and shifted content?

Why on earth would someone tune to CNN for entertainment? (Of course, I can't see why anyone would tune in to a soap opera, but that's just me)

But wait ... now how much would you pay?

[NetSettler]

... I really like a good science show (like an old NOVA) - but when it makes you think, it's just not what they want. ...

In some ways it's as if we have factored out television channels from one another, such that they are each like prime numbers with as little overlap as possible ... well, as more channels get added, maybe there are very specific composites re-added, but you always know and can select the mix. For entertainment, this works out well. But we really need to see news and education as

Re:

[megaditto]

They need to know what issues are affecting them urgently and they need the raw tools for analyzing things

Unless you are willing to dictate to the cable news companies what to include, they are going to stick only to what pays (e.g. terrorism, accidents, political controversy, celebrities and their nude shots).

Maybe Science itself needs to invest in superbowl ads and late night informercials.

And who would that be, exactly? Nobody with lots of money has a lot of interest in improving public awareness about science, not even the big pharms, weapons makers, or universities.

Re:

[cayenne8]

"People will try to tell us that the current financial problems in the US were a big surprise. But most rationally informed people have seen this kind of thing coming for quite some time. The same scenario is playing out for climate change, and the stakes are way higher."

I dunno...I think there are plenty of rationally informed people out there that just don't follow financial news. I must admit, I've only recently started taking an interest in it in the past few years, now that I'm making enough money to

Re:

[sm62704]

Link: UnNews:New York governor linked to prostitution, approval rating skyrockets [uncyclopedia.org]

Re:"Life" has a smaller percentage.

[necro81]

I'd say this statement is a reflection of the ignorance most people have about science and technology. It surrounds every facet of their lives - they're just too oblivious to realize it. From the car they drive to work, to the computer they use once they get there (be it a powerful workstation or a cash register), to the device playing music in the background, to the TV they watch at home while tucking into a microwaved dinner - science and technology is all around them.

Most people don't recognize this fact until some piece of technology fails them. Then they wail and cry because they can't watch the latest episode of American Idol, and rail against the "scientists" who have betrayed them with a TV that's broken. Never mind that science and technology have enriched their lives, guarded them from disease and famine, advanced civilization, and allowed them to even have the freetime to squander on reality TV.

In general, it is a fact of technology that, once it is well established, it fades into the background and doesn't register in people's minds. That's no excuse for failing to recognize its importance. That includes the media, too.

Re:

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Why do fireworks die?

Fireworks don't die... they just fade away.