Cable news networks do a terrible job covering science, giving it just a tiny fraction of the time devoted to celebrities, disaster and talking heads. But could this actually be an ideal situation?

I posted on cable news science coverage yesterday after the Project for Excellence in Journalism released its State of the News Media 2008 report. Why the blind spot, I wondered, and dozens of readers gave thoughtful answers, ranging from the inability of science to compete with titillation and gore to the public's general scientific illiteracy.

Adam Rogers – my editor and a correspondent on the Wired Science television show

\– pointed out that the Project's findings were somewhat skewed, as they disregarded the science-related television produced by other cable networks, some of which are devoted entirely to science.

Adam's point is a good one, and it raised some other questions. Does the fare offered by the Discovery 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?

Since cable news netwoks 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. What do you think, Wired Science readers?

Image: Jeff Maurone

*

Note: You're reading this on a computer, not a

TV screen. Another possibility: does the rise of internet news and commentary make this wrangling over cable news obsolete? **

*

See Also:

WiSci 2.0: Brandon Keim's Twitter and Del.icio.us feeds; Wired Science on Facebook.