Most things in life bear the imprint of science. The tools we use, the games we play, the medicines we take – all are profoundly influenced by science, as are many political policies and cultural practices. Climate change is arguably the most important issue now confronting the human race.

Why, then, do cable news networks have so little time for science in their broadcasts?

The Project for Excellence in Journalism just released The State of the

News Media 2008, its annual analysis of cable television news. The mediascape proved barren: On average, five hours of viewing would yield

71 minutes of politics, 26 minutes of crime, 12 minutes of disasters and 10 minutes of celebrities. Science, technology, health and the environment received just six minutes of coverage (with health and health care accounting for half of that.)

Newspapers, network news and online news all provided more science coverage, though not by much.

Why is science so poorly covered by cable television? I'm tempted to cite the complexity of scientific topics and the superficiality of cable news, but I'm not sure that's correct: After all, it's perfectly possible to be successful with bad science news, and TV news isn't necessarily stupid.

So – I'm baffled. What do you think, Wired Science readers?

The State of the News Media 2008 [Project for Excellence in Journalism]

Image: Brandon Keim

Note: Maybe when the Presidential elections are over, the people campaigning for a science debate will mobilize in support of more and better cable science news. In the long run, I think that would actually do more for science.*

Note Two: Don't feel bad, scientists. Compared to artists, you're practically celebrities!

Note Three: Could the failure of cable news networks to cover science be a good thing?

See Also:

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