( By Carrington Dillon ) [Approx. Read Time: 0.5 minutes]
I’m going to give DGM credit for getting me thinking about this one. Recently, he brought up his frustration with titles of nuclear news articles in the media. It’s true that subtlety, the media has a lot of power on the way we conceive certain subjects. One of those is Nuclear Power. For example, check out the NY Times’ “Nuclear Energy” news wire. The insult to your intelligence immediately hits you as soon as you scroll down the page. There are actually articles about terrorism, dirty bombs, etc. that are being related to Nuclear Power.
Who is for a petition, letter writing campaign, or some other form of persuasion to get the NY Times to fix this blaring problem with their categorization of Nuclear Energy? Please feel free to comment. As always, your ideas are welcome, no matter how small or insignificant they seem to you.
Any one that wants to write a note to the editor, here’s the contact info from the NYT website.
Send a letter to the editor by e-mailing letters@nytimes.com or faxing (212)556-3622.
OR
Letters to the Editor
The New York Times
620 Eighth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
You’re not the only one who has concerns about the NY Times coverage of the nuclear industry.
Dan Yurman, publisher, Idaho Samizdat, a blog about nuclear energy
http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/05/ny-times-claims-renaissance-is-over.html
The opposite end of the headlines spectrum is a recent World Nuclear News title “Nuckids on the Reactor Block” describing a Russian children’s song and dance troup aimed at dispelling myths about radiation and nuclear power. Perhaps we could get the NY Times to post an article on this pronuclear movement. Sigh. We can dream anyway. But it is certainly a “Nuclear Energy” news wire worthy story.
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/IT_NucKids_on_the_reactor_block_1707092.html
Rod Adams at his blog has been documenting these information abuses. They are misinformed at best, or at worst part of a deliberate propaganda campaign fomenting fear based on misinformation to keep the populace afraid of nuclear power. Based on Rod’s illuminating insights, I tend to sit with the latter. One good-sized nuclear plant can displace a few million $ PER DAY in natural gas, or a similarly large order-of-magnitude in coal costs. That isn’t chump change. Consider also that the largest corporation in the world, Exxon, has a huge presence in natural gas markets. Guys that big aren’t going to step aside voluntarily and let nuclear not only eat their lunch, but also knock them off the top of the global power pyramid. Not without a big fight, and public fear of nuclear power is their best asset.
The oil and gas business has had a iron grip on America’s body-politic for decades. Its tentacles run through Congress with millions in lobbyist dollars to buy government policy to slow-down nuclear (underfunding the NRC guaranteeing huge delays, ridiculous regulatory limits ensuring fiascos such as Yucca to keep the “whaddabouthewaste” meme alive, etc.), through “think-tanks” to genreate policy “papers” to put the veneer of acedemic-sounding credibility on packs of lies, to millions in advertising which keeps corporate media “friendly” to their interests.
For everyone who believes nuclear technology is the only green alternative to both save our economy and the environment, the true enemy must be acknowledged: entrenched fossil-fuel interests that have the power to manipulate government and the general population through PR/propaganda techniques a-plenty. Exposing such subversive inflences, debunking the lies, and spreading valid science-based truth will be essential if we are to stop the long-term economic slide and gathering environmental crisis borne of fossil-fuel dependency.
People spreading these truths on the Internet are up against trillion-dollar global interests with the future of the planet hanging in the balance. A little scary when you think about it, but I believe this to be a moment of truth for our generation. Do we have it in us to choose the right path?
I wouldn’t say there is any specific conspiracy on the part of the NYT’s and fossil fuel interests, rather a common “crime” almost just as bad might be the main culprit for otherwise lackluster reporting — apathy.
Many reporters have no science background but that’s not an objective problem, lack of curiosity is. We have no idea how the NYT reporters got their start on this section, but I would hope that more people would have the same reaction as I did when I started to research nuclear energy - “wow, this is better than I’d have imagined”.