Why My Dog (And I) No Longer Watch CNN

In my home office we are boycotting CNN. Of course, my home office is a room at the back of my house occupied by myself and the family dog, a boxer named Dodger, who contributes by snoring musically while I work.

Nevertheless, we take this boycott seriously. We do not checkout the CNN website and we do not watch CNN broadcasts and our protest has spread to the adjoining room, where my husband, a fellow journalist, also now avoids the CNN for fear of being bitten (by the dog, thank you).

We abandoned the whole Cable News Network operation in the first week of December, the day after the organization announced that it was closing down its science, technology and environmental news department, firing its chief science correspondent, Miles O'Brien, six executive producers, and the rest of the science-savvy support staff.

Candidly, the boycott hasn't been much a sacrifice. The basic news -- economy, war, economy, corrupt politicians, economy -- isn't that hard to find elsewhere. But we're standing on our principles. We will only invest our time in news operations, including the one I'm writing for now, which are smart enough to know that informed science coverage is absolutely an essential part of the news of the day.

Now, you might argue that I'm biased by the fact that I'm a career science journalist, a past president of the National Association of Science Writers, the North American board member of the World Federation of Science Journalists. If you thought that meant I had hoped to one day cover science for CNN you would be wrong -- they wouldn't hire me anyway. I'm too short and funny looking. But you would be right that I am completely, irredeemably, biased on the subject.

I believe that science and technology shape, often dramatically, the world we live in today. I also believe such fast-moving changes need to be explained - thoroughly, skeptically, beautifully - to people who don't work with or normally follow the world of science. So that when health officials urge us to get a winter flu shot, we can evaluate our own risks and benefits. So that the connections between industrial gases and global climate change are shown with clear logic. So that that when the National Research Council announces, as it last week, that the Bush administration has failed to effectively investigate the risks of nanotechnology, we can decide whether or not to worry.

This country has owned the best science communication system in the world. I believe that we should value, maintain and improve our ability to communicate about science, not dismantle it. CNN didn't even bother to blame its decision to close down the science department on the standard budget cut line. Instead, its spokesperson suggested that that all that acquired expertise simply wasn't needed, that since Anderson Cooper and company were producing the Planet in Peril series, "there is no need for a separate unit."

We at the home office would really enjoy hearing Anderson Cooper explain the complicated risks associated with exposure to nanoparticles. I would wake up the dog for that, even. But until that day, or until the CNN management gets a clue about the world we live in, this office will continue to get its news elsewhere.

Comments

[OliverTwist]

As a collatoral benefit to not watching CNN you will no longer be subject to seduction by news which can be roughly decoded as Voice of America style packaging of fascism for commies.

[LAJonathan]

Science Schmiance, its all about the lord

[jasjohn128]

It's a shame to say it, but if you're the kind of viewer interested in science, technology, and environmental issues, then you're not CNNs kind of viewer.

I watched in disgust a few days ago as Wolf Blitzer played video footage shot when that plane crashed into a house last week. CNN was playing (and replaying) death as entertainment, as titillation, because they're in the business of attracting viewers who like that kind of thing. For news, well, you can read the paper or Huffpo.

Mass broadcast news media aimed at Americans, whether on cable or the networks, is less and less distinguishable from the kind of crap aimed all day long at society's unfortunates - and you can bet the quality of what's put on the news, and how it's reported, is inversely proportional to the flashy graphics, crawls, and fast camera breakaways that accompany it.

[Classof89]

I stopped watching CNN a few years ago when they decided to display too much junk at the bottom of the screen, headline news channel wasn't headline news anymore, and when they started trying to cater to only young people. All I want is the news, not loud mouthpieces with pointless opinions, not Barbie and Ken dolls, just straight-up, stick-to-the-facts, strictly news.

[Bendra]

Just when we thought that there would be light at the end of the tunnel, CNN takes a giant U-turn. I must say that blogs have diverted my attention from TV news for quite a while. I think I'll just keep it that way.

[katielady]

OMG! ME TOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I sure hope CNN reads this..

[Meds]

So, on one hand CNN uses hologram technology for interviews, and on other hand it closes its science, technology, and environmental news department?

Anyway, I don't watch CNN.

[muffler]

I stopped CNN a long time ago when I too noticed that they has but the entertainment tab on their web site above Tech and dropped science completely. Instead the Tech tab was the place to market TVs, new games etc. They would put one real science story out and the rest were about Play Stations and Blu Ray, It was consumer technology. I use the BBC now. Good Call.

In an era where America should be pushing interest in science and engineering the News organizations are entertainment channels. Pretty girls and handsome boys telling prewritten vapid stories with no investigation of thought.

[NotoriousKelly]

I've stopped watching CNN for the same reason I can't stand Faux newz:
uber-dramatic, singsongy ditzes stumbling on the teleprompter.

Remember Cronkite's monotone when reporting?

I'm not saying we need to go That far, but at least somewhere in between.

We don't need bimbo's telling us how we should feel about a story; some semblance of unbiased fact-reporting would be Wonderful!

[Youdontsay]

Here's hoping CNN quickly comes to its senses and brings back its science/technology/environment unit. It is not a full news operation without a trained science team. Meanwhile, I hope someone else snaps up Miles O'Brien.

[traveller77]

Thanks, Debra. Two things:

CNN is much worse than most of us think. They are just as bad as Fox News, except that their vocabulary tends to be better.

This country is crying out for a good Science reporting. We have other special-interest shows on radio and TV; why not a decent Science News show as well? In San Francisco, one of our most popular local talk shows is a mostly-Science and technology call-in show on Sunday nights, hosted by Bill Wattenburg (good Science; horrible politics). Why not a syndicated daily column with a little humor and a few links? I'd even subscribe to a daily newspaper to get that column, if it were good enough.

thanks,

tv

[robin50]

We don't need a science department to explain things. We have bush's latest talking points.

[SiberianRat]

I gave up CNN some years ago--terrible journalism. Keep up the boycott! Boxers are so great--give him my support too.

[WritingFrontier]

Good luck in your boycott. One of the things you might want to do is consider getting a different dog, one like Fred. Here's why:

http://saturdaymorningpost.com/2008/10/12/smart-dog/

[trippin]

I gave them up the day they put Glenn Beck on Headline News.