Media Bias

[JMUCKERHEIDE@delphi.com]

John,

I agree. The media is biased. But that's not nuclear power's problem. It's
problem is the fear mongering attitudes and standards-setting by our official
institutions. 

Negative media on many issues exists. In most, the public largely ignores them 
(even serious issues like EPA's coal pollution initiative). Our problem is our 
gov't (and some of our industries and managers who would rather see big bucks
from radiation-phobia than tell the truth about the lack of risk). The media
doesn't produce NCRP and EPA reports, etc etc etc; or even EPRI reports that
do the same (research $$ are powerful incentives). Utilities wer always able
to "just put it in the ratebase". The same with medicine. 

Now the 'competitive' rules are changing. Hope springs that self-interest of
those few companies that plan to be in the competitive generation market will
become leaders (when they shed their 'regulated return-on-investment'
self-serving leadership). 

If we want to see and attack the villian. Look closer to home. We are working
to see that a lot of media understand the duplicity of gov't and the
self-serving 'rad protection' bureaucracies and contractor minions - wasting
$100s of Billions in the gov't trough. 

Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide
jmuckerheide@delphi.com
Radiation, Science, and Health, Inc.

> You wrote:
>  >  But it is the media's choice of what to report, and HOW to report it 
>  that is driving the public perception of nuclear power. 
>      
>  >  The liberal media has an agenda, and they take any opportunity they 
>  see to promote it. If you need an example, look at gun control and the 
>  choice of stories they media chooses to present. Or my personal 
>  favorite, presidential campaigns. In the Bush/Clinton campaign, the 
>  newspapers would print front-page pictures of both candidates. Clinton 
>  would be smiling and kissing babies, Bush would be frowning or 
>  tripping down Air Force One's stairs.
>      
>  > Lets recognize the media for what they are, or more importantly - what 
>  they have become.
>      
>      
>      Harry Anagnostopoulos
>      Dresden Station
>  
> 
> 
>    
> An issue of the "Wilson Quarterly" summarized on page 123 an article by
> Thomas E. Patterson in 'The Annals' of the American Academy of Political and
> Social Sciences (Bad News, Bad Governance') which you may find interesting.
> This article quantifies the change in tone about articles on the government,
> and criticizes the national media as being "relentlessly, corrosivly
> negative in their coverage...".  The article laments the shift from 'just
> the facts' journalism to "interpretive" journalism, where the journalist
> becomes more important to the story than the newsmaker, "using facts mainly
> as illustrations of the theme" chosen for the story.  He illustrates this
> point by showing that during the 1992 general election, for every minute of
> air time the candidates were shown speaking, the journalist covering the
> candidate received 6 minutes of air time, allowing them to choose what
> issues were covered and what was the correct "spin".
> 
> The reference is  "Bad News, Bad Governance",  Thomas E. Patterson. 'The
> Annals' (July 1996) The American Academy of Political and Social Sciences,
> 3937 Chestnut St. Philadelphia, PA 19104 
> 
> A previous issue of the Wilson Quarterly also had a summary of an article on
> Journalistic bias in the Bush/Clinton election.  It started with a cartoon
> showing a reporter running in with a copy of a paper announcing Clinton's
> victory at the polls.  The reporter shouts "We won, we won...I mean, He won,
> he won!"  The article went on to describe the disproportianate reporting
> methods used on the campaign.  The author stated that negative incidents
> from Clinton and positive events from Bush number resulted in fewer and
> shorter articles or news time. Comments were also made on the semantics used
> in Clinton articles vs. Bush articles, I believe.  
> 
> I can't find that issue, but both articles should be easy to find.  The
> Wilson Quarterly is a publication of the Smithonian's Woodrow Wilson
> Institute for Social Studies.
> 
> I think you and Jim are each talking about a different side of the same coin!
> 
> Regards,
> John Elliott
> Jcell@ibm.net