Let’s prove this theory by studying the recent most popular stories list on CBSNews.com. The key words that seem to drive clicks include:

• adorable cat (x2)
• Palin+Trump (2012 Presidential campaign mates)
• terrible teeny-bopper pop music

This is a disturbing list, America

I rest my case.

This should be good news for those bemoaning the decline of the industrial manufacturing segment of the American economy. We can replace the forging of automobiles with the forging of controversy by the media.

If the media can whip up a storm this quickly 0ver a pair of shorts, then one finds some insight into how much of this health care debate, and the oft-covered clashing between progressives and conservatives, might be just a illusory flame fanned by news outlets.

After all, how much of health reform coverage is about issues and how much is about “death panel” sound bites? Yes, an ill-minded politician must first utter those drivel words, but after they leave his or her mouth, they are born into a life of their own via the resuscitative breath of the news. I’d rather the phrase were never spoken at all, but avoiding the over-exposure of such distracting and worthless issues would be a worthy consolation.

Next story: Justice Sotomayor photographed on vacation not wearing her judge’s robe!

(See poignant story below from Newsweek about the “news” of Michelle’s shorts.)

Who, Exactly, Is Outraged At Michelle Obama’s Shorts?

Kate Dailey

(Dana Felthauser/AP)

Michelle Obama wore shorts to visit the Grand Canyon. Have you heard? Everyone is up in arms—if by “everyone” you mean no one, or rather a large, shadow-y group of no ones.

According to the Today show, “some” are calling her fashion choice inappropriate—but the article quotes only those who support the look or, in the case of Washington Post fashion writer Robin Gihven, those who are “ambivalent” about bare legs for an August hiking trip in Arizona.

The Examiner declares Obama beautiful, then bemoans the fact that “some members of the media and the public” are upset. Who are those members of the media and the public? We don’t know—the article then goes on to endorse Obama and rebuke the nameless attackers. Even in the comments, readers overwhelmingly approved of Obama’s choices, save for the few spare trolls that will always criticize a photographed celeb (the shorts are unflattering, etc). My experience from reading the NEWSWEEK comments shows that if there’s something negative to be said about the administration, an anonymous reader will usually say it, often in several consecutive posts. If the comments are mostly positive, then there probably isn’t much of a controversy.

Continue reading at:

The Human Condition : Who, Exactly, Is Outraged At Michelle Obama’s Shorts?.

Thomson Reuters has partnered with Harvard University’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society to launch the Media Cloud, a set of research tools for tracking online media coverage.

The joint effort is meant to bring some clarity to the vast tangle of news and information on the Web, attempting to answer questions about what types of stories are covered by which media sources, where stories begin, and how blogosphere coverage compares to that of the mainstream media.

The open-source project will debut in the second quarter of 2009.

On the Media Cloud site, the team asked the question, “What Are Your Research Ideas?“.

I’m interested to see the full capabilities of this system when it launches later this year. I’m sure it will reveal some interesting truths about the nature of news network effects. It might also assist in media research projects such as those on media bias. But one question came to mind that I couldn’t shake, so I left this comment on the post:

I’m wondering if Media Cloud will be able to analyze not only information in and around a news story, but statistics on the people who READ a story, pass it on, etc. It seems that in today’s world of immediate global communication, these figures are necessary to draw important conclusions about the relative influence of different news outlets. Do you have any ideas for obtaining or estimating the number of people who read about a given topic for each source covering it? Data such as unique visitors to a page and "send to a friend" emails is typically confidential.

A database of news stories, content analysis, trackbacks, citations, and more, can tell a lot about the distribution and nature of news coverage. But it doesn’t answer the question, “What news source is most influential?“

It seems to me more information is required to answer this question. For example, in studies of the influence of Fox News’ conservative bias, researchers measured the change in voting patterns by households who gained access to Fox News versus those households who did not have access to the channel (the control group).

Nonetheless, Media Cloud sounds like an intriguing research project, and I’m happy to hear that the software will be open-sourced and available to the world for study and collaborative improvement.

CNN is firing science correspondent Miles O'Brien

But seriously, the root of the problem is that science news does not sell like kidnapped babies news, celebrity news, or holy-crap-the-economy-is-melting news. Journalism is a for-profit business, not a for-the-good-of-the-people business.

I wonder if there is any (scientific) link between a country’s interest in science news and its performance in science and math education?

We often hear how poorly the US performs in science and math education. Is this soft education for youngsters responsible for producing science-illiterate adults? Or is the general distribution of news coverage quite similar across the world, regardless of the prowess of a country’s science education?

I would love to hear more on this, so comment if you have any ideas.