Science community angry at CNN

An interesting letter was penned to CNN editors this week in protest over the network's decision to dismantle its entire science team earlier this month. Jointly signed by the presidents of the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, the National Association of Science Writers, the Society of Environmental Journalists, and the World Federation of Science Journalists, the letter nails the network for being short-sided. 

It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Walton and Mr. Klein,

We are writing on behalf of several national and international science journalism organizations to express our strong concern about CNN’s shortsighted decision to cut its science, technology and environment unit in one fell swoop. In wielding this ax, your network has lost an experienced and highly regarded group of science journalists at a time when science coverage could not be more important in our national and international discourse.

The environment, energy technology, space exploration, and biotechnology are crucial ongoing stories that will have growing prominence as a new American president takes office and nations confront a wide range of science-based global issues. As the impacts of climate change intensify, shows like “Planet in Peril” cannot make up for informed daily coverage of this important issue and other science topics in the public eye. As with political and policy reporting, it is important that the underlying science be covered by journalists with the skills and knowledge to sort out competing claims.

Concerned as we are about the dismissal of our colleagues—including the award-winning science reporter Miles O’Brien in New York; Peter Dykstra, head of CNN’s science unit in Atlanta; and five other science producers there—this letter is not about individual journalists. Rather, the wholesale dismantling of the science unit calls into question CNN’s commitment to bringing the most informative science news to the general public, including the science-minded younger audience. If CNN wants to be truly international, it will be at odds with the trend toward increased science coverage in many parts of the world.

It is difficult for us to imagine why CNN, which has earned a justifiably strong reputation for its science journalism in the past, has opted to widen the gap in science coverage rather than strive to fill it. We would hope that you would reconsider your decision and reassemble a cadre of well-trained science journalists that would enable you to expand unfolding science news and in-depth coverage, not shrink it.

Your action is an unfortunate symbol of recent widespread cutbacks in specialty science journalism. Our groups will continue to push for more science coverage by the major media and to do our part to promote the highest possible professional standards for communicating complex science-based issues across the spectrum. We plan to publicize this letter as widely as possible to encourage further discussion of the future of science journalism. Thanks for your attention.

Now, I am all for science journalism. I subscribe to National Geographic, Wired and find articles about NASA and space exploration especially interesting. I hope that good work continues. But, I take issue with the assumption that CNN, an international news network, has a duty to provide science writing to readers and viewers. 

CNN, like most other journalistic enterprises today, is losing money. Although the Internet has not hurt the network cable channels in the same way it has the newspaper industry, it's still slicing into bone. After all, the expensive salaries of Campbell Brown, Wolf Blitzer and Larry King don't come cheap. Neither do the travel expenses the network incurs covering every major world event that unfolds. 

As traditional newspapers continue to erode, democracy will become more dependent on the nation's largest news outlets, both in print and broadcast, to step up their First Amendment reporting. It's not unconceivable that in the next five or 10 years investigations into government and business that are essential to our democracy will only be afforded by CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox News and the nation's largest newspapers. If CNN needs to cut its science department to better ensure First Amendment reporting continues then I am alright with that. Other than reporting on the Bush administration's attempts to edit out data confirming global warming from federal documents I don't see science writing as fulfilling journalism's First Amendment duty. 

Now, if CNN uses the money it saves from this latest move to produce more "journalism" from the same ilk as Dateline NBC's Chris Hansen's "To Catch a Predator" series I will be the first one to scream in protest and write another donation check to National Geographic.