<p>ScienceBlogs <a title="reports" id="r.g6" href="http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2008/03/if_you_watch_five_hours_of_cab.php">reports</a> that for every five hours of cable news, one minute is dedicated to science or the environment. This is according to Pew’s annual <a title="State of the Media" id="zxoo" href="http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2008/index.php">&quot;State of the Media&quot;</a> report.<br /><br />

Wired blogger Brandon Keim <a title="raises some interesting questions" id="g:ni" href="http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/03/should-cable-ne.html">raises some interesting questions</a> about the study, which only takes into account cable news networks. After all, other non-news cable networks broadcast content on science and the environment; some exclusively cover science and environment. Keim asks:</p>

<blockquote> Does the fare offered by the Discover Channel and National Geographic make up for the absence of science on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News? How is it different than what those networks might offer — and as cable news networks are synonymous with sound bites and spin, might it be better for science to stay under their radar?<br />

Since cable news networks make up such a large part of the public sphere, I’m not sure their blindness towards science is a good thing — but they’re so problematic in so many ways that I’m hardly settled on the question. </blockquote>

<p>There are a lot of topics covered by cable news that also get their own channels. Celebrities, for one. It’s a little disconcerting that CNN could be my one-stop shop for Britney Spears news, but not for environmental health news.&nbsp;(According to the Pew report, celebrities/entertainment get 10 times the coverage the environment does.) I agree that National Geographic’s coverage of science and environment is more thoughtful and maybe even more reputable than the &quot;sound bites and spin&quot; of cable news, but the fact is, people watch cable news. Fox News may be the only source of information for some people. So why shouldn’t they get to hear about environment/science news as much as they hear about American Idol news?<br /><br />

Just as science and the environment get their own cable channels, so do politics, food, fashion, business, entertainment, travel, music, etc. Cable viewers know where to go when it comes to their interests. When it comes to the news, CNN shouldn’t necessarily be dictating what those interests should be.</p>