Slashdot Log In
One Minute of Science Per Five Hours of Cable News
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Mar 18, 2008 06:21 AM
from the you-don't-learn-things-by-watching-the-news dept.
from the you-don't-learn-things-by-watching-the-news dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
junk science at that (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:junk science at that (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Parent
Re:junk science at that (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:junk science at that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:junk science at that (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Pew group? (Score:2, Funny)
I'm so sorry, really. I'll go now.
Would they care? (Score:5, Insightful)
Be honest, how many average people do you know who might care about a galaxy eating another galaxy
News networks don't care about news, they care about viewership.
huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cable news is the same as politics (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
Re:ethical boundaries (Score:4, Interesting)
So what? Meh, I'll get back to this.
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.
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 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.
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
Parent
Well, at least you can say one good thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Parent
Enticement (Score:5, Insightful)
Calling science's bluff (Score:2, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
That study is whack (Score:2)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it so bad? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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
That's right (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot, because you're worth it.
This is a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
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. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Training is everything (Score:3, Insightful)
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" (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is junk science at it's worst.
hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Cable News Is A Lot Like Alcohol (Score:2)
If you sit and watch cable news for five hours, your brain will turn to mush.
And quite frankly, if you've a mushed brain then scientific concepts are probably the last thing you'll ever be able to assimilate.
No, you're probably far better off just sat there on you fat backside cramming crisps and canned beer into your mouth while you are mnindlessly forcefed more celebrity gossip and the endless coverage of Paul McCartne
Re:Cable News Is A Lot Like Alcohol (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Good news /bad news (Score:2)
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... (Score:2, Funny)
so what? (Score:2)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
-Carl Sagan, 1995 Interview with Anne Kalosh
Misread that headline (Score:5, Funny)
For a minute, I thought it read "one minute of SILENCE for five hours of cable news".
If only.
The divide... (Score:4, Interesting)
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:consequences... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.
But wait ... now how much would you pay? (Score:3, Insightful)
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:"Life" has a smaller percentage. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent