Media misinformation (was Thanks, Ruth (was RE: UF6))

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

At 02:14 AM 8/28/2002 -0400, BLHamrick@aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 08/27/2002 1:25:39 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 

>lists@richardhess.com writes:

>

>

>>It was a mistake that wasn't repeated...and probably the closest the media

>>in the U.S. ever came to hurting people (other than a couple of Jerry

>>Springer or similar shock-shows where audience members were hurt or

>>killed--I don't think that counts).

>

>

>Ooo!  I know this is totally off the topics normally associated with 

>Radsafe, but wasn't there also a Jenny Jones show that resulted in the 

>murder of a gentleman who had confessed his love for another man on the show?



Yes, that was the one I was thinking of but couldn't remember the name when 

I wrote "or similar shock shows."



>And, to bring this back around to the more mundane, isn't the media 

>partially responsible for escalating public fear with respect to dirty 

>bombs and even the most benign uses of radioactive materials?  I mean, I 

>think that there is a legitimate question as to how much stress and 

>anxiety is induced in the public due solely to irresponsible reporting, 

>and not just on matters of radioactivity, but also the West Nile Virus, 

>and the proportions of the Anthrax threat.



I think this is a significant issue. There has been a saying at least 

behind the scenes among some media critics describing news reporting 

selection, "if it bleeds, it leads." (for the one person [not you] who 

doesn't know what a "lead story" is it's the first story in the lineup).



My decision to join this list was based on constantly being barraged with 

fears of radioactivity by news media and friends. I didn't want to be 

another un-knowledgeable sheep at the mercy of the media/public officials 

pandering to media/constituency  perceptions in case something SHOULD happen.



We're between a rock and a hard place. On one hand we don't want the 

constant barrage of "there's a threat here," "here a threat/there a 

threat/everywhere a threat threat" in the media, but this has escalated 

since the media began reporting (instigated by the very brave FBI lady) 

"what we shoulda/coulda/oughta done to prevent September 11th--who knew 

what and when and why."



One of the major reasons for the existence (at least from their marketing 

perspective) of a news organization is to turn the cacophony of the 

unedited news stream (wires, backhauls, correspondent filings) into a 

cohesive whole. I can only imagine what the cacophony of unrelated tips and 

fact-ettes unearthed by the law enforcement organizations (LEOs) must be 

like as they try and connect the dots BEFORE the event.



I'm certain the news media is grabbing every thread the LEOs feed them and 

amplifying it. They certainly don't want to be in the position of NOT 

informing the public IF something should happen.



Then we couple with that the very vocal protesting (and sometimes dramatic 

stunts) of environmental organizations and we're stuck walking a tightrope 

of who to believe. I will say that at least some environmentalists deeply 

believe what they are doing is right--and their motivations are totally 

altruistic. I am sure there are some who are doing it for power/etc.



I'm not sure how we resolve this. I think more balanced reporting is one 

key and perhaps some group of health physicists -- once hormesis becomes 

more accepted -- should become as vocal about these results and say things 

like "the government is denying you your minimum daily requirement of 

radiation due to poor understanding of the mechanisms."  Some wag posted 

here that we should use low-level waste recycled as rebar and other 

construction material to help provide that dose. Who knows, maybe that IS a 

good idea.



I think the media--and all of government--is based on advocacy and the 

"squeaky wheel" approach.



I'm not sure this is related to the charter of the list, but it certainly 

relates to things discussed on this list.



Cheers,



Richard



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/