NSF study - Americans' interest in tech news at 12-year low

[bboyer]

A study released yesterday by the US National Science Foundation (PDF available here) cites data from the Pew Research Center and other leading academic centers and universities, as indicating that Americans' interest in news about science and technology topics is perhaps 35% lower today than at the advent of the Web.

Most notably, a Pew Research survey of an average of 3,615 respondents per year, in an ongoing study dating back to 1977, shows a precipitous decline in the number of Americans who say they "closely follow" science and technology stories, from 1996 to 2008. While 20% of respondents admitted to closely following tech news prior to the Web's deployment on the Internet, only 13% admitted so in 2008. (Data for 2009 has yet to be assimilated.)

Amazingly, the trend is not limited to technology news; according to the study, along with other corroborative research to back it up, Americans' intense interest in several other general topics has declined by similar amounts. Health news, for instance, generated 42% less intense interest over the 12-year span, with only 20% of respondents saying they follow that category regularly. Crime as a category is less interesting to 32% of respondents. Entertainment news interest has declined by 33%, to just 10% of respondents; and sports is less interesting to 30% of those surveyed, with just 20% expressing regularly intense interest. Though Pew now lists a greater number of categories than in its original survey, science and technology (S&T) ranked #13 in 2008's list of 18 categories.

What's interesting? Politics and financial news, both of which have seen slight gains. Religious news remains steadily of interest of 17% of respondents.

"Relative to interest in other topics, however, interest in S&T in the GSS was not particularly high," states the NSF report. "Interest in 'new scientific discoveries' and 'use of new inventions and technologies' ranked in the middle among the 10 areas most frequently listed in the surveys: above space exploration, agriculture and farming, and international and foreign policy; below new medical discoveries, environmental pollution, economic issues and business conditions, and about the same as military and defense policy and local schools. Of course, a more inclusive concept of S&T might treat several of the topics in this list, such as space exploration and new medical discoveries, as part of the S&T category; furthermore, other topics often include substantial S&T content."

In other words, certain news stories with a technology bent may have captured the nation's attention for a time, but that attention failed to spur interest in science or technology categorically. A sharp increase in tech-related stories was noted for the middle part of the last decade, due perhaps in large part to the repair of the Hubble Space Telescope. While Americans showed interest in Hubble, for some reason, they failed to maintain their interest in space.

One possible reason for Americans' disinterest in the NSF's key bailiwick, the study's authors believe, has to do with something called the "evening news." Citing a multi-year study by the Tyndall Report of the relative coverage of topics of interest by entities referred to as "the three major broadcast networks," the collective amount of time devoted to S&T stories declined from about 750 minutes per year at the height of Hubble's travails, to about 200 minutes by the end of 2010.

What is this thing called "television?" According to the Pew study, it's the place where 47% of respondents in 2008 claim they get their principal news, with 22% claiming the Internet and 20% newspapers. Although Pew cites a sharp rise in the apparent popularity of this Internet thing we've been seeing (perhaps in the paper or on the news), survey respondents who do cite the Internet as a source say it's as a supplement to what they receive through the Web.

http://www.betanews.com/article/NSF-stu ... 1263924296

[StevenJay]

When I was a kid, the evening news was only delivered by serious-sounding men, because that patriarcal "father knows best" approach tended to elicit a sense of autority and trust from the viewers. Back then, those guys weren't TV "personalities," they simply read aloud what was being passed off as "news" at the time. News programs were notoriously dry and boring because they weren't considered to be "entertainment." There was no banter among the newscasters, with the possible exception of Chet Huntley and David Brinkley bidding each other nighty-night at the end of the show.

Nowdays, thanks to decades of dumbing-down by both broadcast TV and mandatory public edumacation (corporate/government propaganda) systems, the "news" topics that hold the most interest for the masses are the ones that generate the most melodrama. If it isn't loud, brightly-colored and sparkly, it simply doesn't register.

The mainstream, corporate-owned-and-controlled "news industry" is primarily in the business of making cat toys.

[bboyer]

"And that's the way it is."

-- Walter Cronkite

[Grey Cloud]

Nice post StevenJay. As far as dumbing-down goes, I can tell you guys that America isn't the only horse in this race. The UK is in there too and at the moment it's neck and neck.
A few weeks ago I'd been listening to the footie on BBC radio after which the hourly news came on. There was a story about the trial of some guy who had burned his girlfriend to death, then while I was still trying to get my head around this, the solemn tones of the newsreader informed me that David Beckham's grand-father had died. It was like a Doctor Bob moment as I sat there looking around the room wondering where that had come from. At the time Beckham was in South Africa for the World Cup draw and the newsreader speculated whether Beckham would fly home to be with his family or just come back in time for the funeral. Maybe it's just me but I didn't see it as a national crisis either way.

[tayga]

This morning as I watched the BBC News Channel the ticker tape message along the bottom of the screen was about a study showing that people's aptitude for video games might be predicted by the size of different parts of their brain.

I wondered who the hell cares.

[jjohnson]

I care. This thread reflects a long-going, disturbing trend, for people in general and the hopes for good science and the chances for the EU paradigm's succeeding, in particular. I want the EU interpretations to be considered seriously by individuals who actually know how to think. If people who can think are so bombarded with information that their brains are essentially fried most of the time, whom are we speaking to?

The flood of visual and sonic and verbal and twittered and texted information is neuronically deafening. No one performs well under most of the conditions we endure hour to hour, at home, at work, in traffic, on the web, in front of the TV, at lunch, etc. Messages are spun, censored, biased, adulterated and some are part lies and part ignorance. People are increasingly going to lose enthusiasm, and what little they have left will take increasingly high levels of stimulation to ignite. This is, plain and simple, sensory overload. Even, perhaps especially, our wonderful internet simply adds to this cacophony of stimuli. It's not a simple time, any more. Our coping mechanisms are defeating our intelligence, common sense, imagination and curiosity. Who "has time" to listen and to think? Actually, we all do, if we let go of the less-than-essential things which we uselessly let take up our time now.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but large corporations and governments have learned that they can best take advantage of those people who do not think critically and carefully for themselves. Hawks can always pick off the dumber and slower squirrels first. That's wired into every predator's genes. And there's no predator like an intelligent predator.

I'm probably preaching to the choir here.

Jim

[mharratsc]

"We now interrupt our scheduled programming for this important message:

"Please remember to get up and go pee."

We now return you to 'Entertainment Tonight', hosted by a male and female pair of young airheads whom are currently trendy and popular! (we didn't ask them their names...)"

[junglelord]

H.R. PuffnStuff

[tayga]

The flood of visual and sonic and verbal and twittered and texted information is neuronically deafening.

Thanks. Your comment reminded me of Alvin Toffler's Future Shock and his prediction of information overload. I think you've correctly identified the cause of public disaffection with news of all kinds.

I'm just reading anything I can about Eric Dollard and his recreation of Tesla's experiments and it struck me that the only way to penetrate the fog of speculative fiction that surrounds consensus science at the moment might be with spectacular results that bypass interpretation. Discussion with conservative experts in cosmology, particle physics and a host of other subjects just leads into a mire. As a research scientist myself I am at least aware of what causes the confusion and can hold it at arm's length but it must be overwhelming for non-specialists.