It's been more than a month since CNN announced that it was cutting "its entire science, technology, and environment news staff", it's been nearly a month since Chris Mooney pointed out that one of the people who wasn't cut, meteorologist Chad Myers, seems to think he knows more about global climate than the scientists of the IPCC, and it's been three weeks since the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the World Federation of Science Journalists released a joint letter to presidents for U.S. and worldwide operations protesting the cuts (report from the Columbia Journalism Review).
Still the cuts rankle.
On Monday Paul Oestreicher wrote:
Still the cuts rankle.
On Monday Paul Oestreicher wrote:
CNN's timing could not be worse. We are in desperate need of another science boom and greater public support will surely help propel the effort forward. Our healthcare, our environment, our energy needs and our economy all depend on it. Thirty years ago, the US ranked third among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering. Now, we stand in 17th place.I couldn't agree more.
At a time when the challenges facing humanity are growing rapidly and when meeting those challenges increasingly depends on scientific research, the need for public support and understanding of science has never been greater. (source)And yet...
Newspaper readership has been slowly dropping for decades. (22 December 2008)It isn't just science news that is suffering. And the problem isn't just that traditional news outlets are old fuddy duddies slow to adapt to change and so losing money. CNN apparently isn't losing money,1 in part because it's been skillful at identifying what the viewing public wants and giving it to them.
The Boston Globe, a newspaper owned by The New York Times Co., will close its last overseas news bureaus to save more than $1 million a year. (24 January 2007)
"The trench-coated foreign correspondent as Gregory Peck played him in the movies is suddenly almost extinct". (14 July 2008)
The problem is, as Pogo would say, "We have met the enemy...and he is us."
The fragmentation of television markets means that viewers simply switch channels if they don't find what's on interesting or engaging. That means "important" news, whether on scientific or political issues, is easily swept away by celebrities and personal interest stories. And that's on news channels. The good news is that thanks to the Discovery Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Animal Planet, and the like, there's actually more environmental and scientific programming available now than there was twenty or thirty years ago -- for those who are interested enough to watch. The bad news, if you're inclined to avoid environmental and scientific programming, it's easier than ever to avoid.
And CNN's decision just made it that much easier.
What to do? Well, we have to hope that creative, intelligent people who are sympathetic to science -- people like Natalie Angier, Randy Olson, and Carl Zimmer -- continue to write books and articles, continue to produce movies, and continue to reach out beyond the public that is already interested in science to engage a wider and wider audience. We have to encourage those who have talents like theirs to develop and use them.2 We have to encourage scientists to help those who have the talents necessary to reach a broad audience find and communicate the wonder and beauty of science. And we have to encourage news organizations to invest in coverage of science.
But think about how the New Yorker article quoted above concludes:
Does that mean newspapers are doomed? Not necessarily. There are many possible futures one can imagine for them, from becoming foundation-run nonprofits to relying on reader donations to that old standby the deep-pocketed patron. It's even possible that a few papers will be able to earn enough money online to make the traditional ad-supported strategy work. But it would not be shocking if, sometime soon, there were big American cities that had no local newspaper; more important, we're almost sure to see a sharp decline in the volume and variety of content that newspapers collectively produce. For a while now, readers have had the best of both worlds: all the benefits of the old, high-profit regime--intensive reporting, experienced editors, and so on--and the low costs of the new one. But that situation can't last. Soon enough, we're going to start getting what we pay for, and we may find out just how little that is.We may be about to learn how little science coverage we pay for. If we don't like how little that is, we will have to find a way to pay more.
1A few days before the cuts were announced, the New York Times reported that CNN was starting a wire service to compete with the Associated Press. (citation thanks to CJR)
2Don't worry. I may be conceited, but I'm not conceited enough to think that I have those kinds of talents.
Leave a comment