CNN eliminating Science reporting unit

[n2doc]

Science Journalism Implosion, CNN and Beyond
By ANDREW C. REVKIN

CNN is firing science correspondent Miles O’Brien and six producers. (Credit: CNN)

CNN is eliminating its seven-person unit covering science, the environment, and technology, saying its “Planet in Peril” programs do the trick. Curtis Brainard, who assesses environmental coverage for the Columbia Journalism Review online, in a comprehensive piece on the move, said: “he decision to eliminate the positions seems particularly misguided at a time when world events would seem to warrant expanding science and environmental staff.”

Of course, the situation at CNN is hardly isolated. Newspaper coverage of science outside of health and wellness is steadily eroding. Even here at The Times, where the Science Times section celebrated its 25th anniversary in 2003 and management has always supported strong science coverage, we (like everyone in print media) are doing ever more with less.

At CNN, among those leaving will be Peter Dykstra, a seasoned producer focused on science and the environment, and Miles O’Brien, a longtime CNN reporter and former morning news anchor, who I got to know when he turned to climate coverage in a big way several years ago. (See his spicy interview with Senator James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who challenges dire climate projections.)

Just in case you think this is a new trend, consider this flashback to the 1980’s, which shows how the public-service aspect of journalism — sustaining coverage of important arenas even if it does not “sell” — is a hard fit in a world focused on the bottom line:

more:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/science-coverage-imploding-at-cnn-beyond/

I am sure they will be hiring on their "Palin coverage" staff.... :puke:

[TZ]

1. Typical

If science isn't relative to the normal American, they aren't interested. Look how many people whine and bitch about the space program because they don't see "how it benefits me".
The attitude that all knowledge is worth having is disappearing in our modern anti-intellectual environment. Eight years of the Bushies war on science has done its job....x(

[n2doc]

3. And of course if no one is making the case for relevancy...

Then it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Good science reporters can make the case for why a particular bit of research is relevant and make it exciting. Without that link, the only way to show the public that what you are doing is worth funding is to write a book or some other article yourself, and try and get it published/popularized. Not many have the skillset and time to do that.

Imagine if science reporting was given 1/1000 the amount of attention that Brittany Spears' latest record or Angela Jolie's latest adoption is given.....

[HamdenRice]

4. How is this related to the OP

and where is the cost-benefit analysis. The OP is simply saying one corporation is cutting back its reporting. How is that a referendum on the position of science in society?

But the more controversial claim in your post is: "The attitude that all knowledge is worth having is disappearing..." That statement seems to avoid the cost benefit analysis, which taxpayers understandably make.

All knowledge may be worth having, but at what cost? For example, given that governmental budgets always require trade-offs, would an very expensive experiment inquiring about an obscure bit of scientific knowledge about an imagined or speculative sub atomic particle be worth trading off, say, a childrens' vaccination program that predictably decreases infant mortality?

How many dead children would you trade for an experiment in subatomic particles?

Please explain! Your position is confusing to me.

Regards,

:hi:

[TZ]

6. n2doc understood what I was saying

Not my fault you can't grasp simple concepts.
BTW, I believe this constitues stalking. Alerting.

[anigbrowl]

7. Too few people are interested for such reporting to be economical (or so CNN figures)

If the social status of science as a pursuit were higher (like that associated with having an MBA, at least until recently) and science teaching in school were better, then there would be a bigger audience for science coverage.

Incidentally, your cost-benefit argument makes a good point, but it depends on the lifetime over which the cost r benefit is delivered. A result involving some obscure subatomic particle is not of immediately obvious benefit, but may become so down the line in two ways: one, the publicity value of attracting more prospective scientists to study the subject and two, unforseeable technological developments. Your computer, after all, is cheap and fast thanks to some rather obscure subatomic phenomena.

I suggest that the flaw in your argument is the lack of a benchmark or window for evaluating the results. It's like saying 'why spend 5 years and millions of dollars on fixing that bridge - just buy a helicopter today.'

[jwirr]

2. Fire the science reporters but keep the failin palin department. nt

[laconicsax]

5. Looks like it's back to transporter duty for O'Brien.