After a New York Times Special Report transcribed a body of partisan talking points as objective information, it found itself having to append an Editor's Note. Although the Editor's Note only addressed a fraction of the Special Report's shortcomings, it is surprising that it was appended at all. Such uncritical, propagandistic reporting about nuclear technology has been the
status quo in much of the press since the Reagan Administration.
Since the Special Report was posted several times on DU, it seems appropriate that the Editor's Note be posted here, too, so that its readers have the opportunity to re-evaluate any conclusions informed by it. And, as most anti-nuclear activists insist that the objects of their antagonism are (in their words) liars, I am sure they will appreciate correcting a situation that has the potential to mark
them as liars.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=1">Nuclear Energy Loses Cost Advantage UpdateEditors' Note Appended(Q.v.: body of article of July 27, 2010; not copied here.)Editors' Note: August 3, 2010An article published July 27 in an Energy Special Report analyzed the costs of nuclear energy production. It quoted a study that found that electricity from solar photovoltaic systems could now be produced less expensively than electricity from new nuclear power plants.
In raising several questions about this issue and the economics of nuclear power, the article failed to point out, as it should have, that the study was prepared for an environmental advocacy group, which, according to its Web site, is committed to ‘‘tackling the accelerating crisis posed by climate change — along with the various risks of nuclear power.’’ The article also failed to take account of other studies that have come to contrasting conclusions, or to include in the mix of authorities quoted any who elaborated on differing analyses of the economics of energy production.
Although the article did quote extensively from the Web site of the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, representatives of the institute were not given an opportunity to respond to the claims of the study. This further contributed to an imbalance in the presentation of this issue.
("Extensively" was six paragraphs out of the forty-five in the article; each statement by the NEI was matched with an opposing or derogatory editorial statement. --d)This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: July 27, 2010An earlier version of this article incorrectly identified Vermont Law School as an affiliate of the University of Vermont.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=1">Read the http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=1">correctedhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/business/global/27iht-renuke.html?_r=1"> Special Report at the New York Times online. The main, and most noteworthy flaw in the Special Report is that it dealt almost exclusively with subsidies to nuclear power, and neglected to scrutinize the subsidies going to new renewable energy industries, particularly solar PV. Nuclear subsidies are described as being categorically
bad. Yet the report, in announcing the cost benefits of solar PV power, makes it clear that the economic advantage depends on its own subsidies, and adjudges
them to be entirely beneficial. The Editor's Note did not address this contradiction, in spite of their prominence in the Special Report.
Other issues, e.g., deceptive arguments in the source material (i.e., Blackburn 2010, Cooper 2009, and Goldberg 2000) also remain unexamined by the Times.
--d!
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
