
Mainstream Failure - gvb
http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/201x/2011/03/21/Mad-at-the-Media
======
erikstarck
I don't know if I'm alone in this but I actually have a more positive view on
nuclear power now than before Fukushima.

I grew up in Sweden not that far from Chernobyl. I have been taught that a
nuclear disaster equals instant doom over a massive area.

Now I'm learning that even after having an earthquake equal to 30'000
Hiroshima bombs go off nearby and a 16 meter Tsunami wash over it, a somewhat
old nuclear plant still doesn't do any more harm than what can be cleaned up -
and it's only local damage.

I also learn that the confirmed deaths in cancer from Chernobyl was far fewer
than I had thought.

Not even when the media writes about terrorism have I seen such a wide gap
between what's on the front page and what the experts are saying.

At the same time we keep feeding oil money to crazy dictators. This is insane!
We need more nuclear power, now! Let's just hope the damage done by mainstream
media doesn't stop nuclear expansion.

That would be a true disaster.

~~~
albertzeyer
At least in Germany, everything what the media says about this had a really
huge effect. The 7 oldest reactors will be shut down now (temporarily) and the
discussion is going on now wether this should be permanently and what should
be done with the remaining 9 reactors.

~~~
sleepingbot
Look at how coal is being used in Germany to produce energy. Nobody seems to
complain about it. Coal is subsidized, because of fear of losing votes and
strikes from coal miners.

------
jrwoodruff
I get so tired of comments blasting mainstream media. It's easy to do, and
just counterproductive. The good stories about the tsunami are out there, you
just have to stop watching 24 hour news channels. Read the Boston Globe, The
New York Times, The Atlantic.

Please stop complaining that good stories don't fall in your lap for free. Go
find them, or build a better way to put important, un-sensationalized stories
in front of millions of people while getting effectively compensated for your
time.

Here's 10 minutes of checking top news sources:

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/aftershocks-keep-
japanes...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/aftershocks-keep-japanese-in-
fear-as-residents-worry-about-another-big-one/2011/03/21/ABYNwA7_story.html)

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-earthquake-and-
tsu...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-earthquake-and-tsunami-
caused-up-to-235-billion-in-damages-world-bank-
says/2011/03/21/ABtzwn4_story.html)

<http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/>

[http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1104ap_as_japan_earthquake...](http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1104ap_as_japan_earthquake_bank_robbery.html)

[http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-japan-
earthqua...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-japan-
earthquake_N.htm)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22predict.html?ref...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22predict.html?ref=asia)

[http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-
ag...](http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-
aging-20110322,0,1303885.story)

 _edit to add links_

~~~
ajscherer
How is it counterproductive? By what mechanism does complaining about the
mainstream media actually make it worse? Complaining about the mainstream
media may indeed fail to improve it, but saying nothing will certainly have no
effect.

~~~
heyitsnick
> but saying nothing will certainly have no effect.

Of course it will. Don't consume it.

~~~
marshray
Part of our frustration probably stems from the reality that the large media
businesses will get by just fine without the readership of the elite clientèle
of YC. [eye roll]

However, most of us probably do tend to influence the opinion of a few others.
A little complaining (in a constructive way) might be useful, albeit in an
indirect way.

I like to think of preaching to the choir (or disagreeing with them) as being
a way of polishing one's persuasion prior to the full congregation (or
converting the masses).

------
pieter
One of the things that annoys me slightly is that while our news is loaded
with the nuclear accidents, I haven't heard any mainstream media talk about
this refinery fire caused by earthquake which had been raging for 10 days,
putting who knows how much pollution in the air.

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/japan-refinery-
idU...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/japan-refinery-
idUSL3E7EL0UN20110321)

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/enciclopediapt/5523005370/>

~~~
roc
Nuclear accidents are scary because people don't understand reactors, they
don't understand the actual dangers and there, frankly, haven't been a whole
lot of them, so FUD can snowball.

On the other hand, mine collapses, refinery fires, oil spills, explosions --
the causes of the day to day death toll of the fossil fuel supply chain (to
say nothing of its use) is familiar, understandable and all too common.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/25-oth...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/25-other-
energy-disasters-from-the-last-year/72814/) (25 fossil fuel energy disasters
from 2010, claiming 668 lives)

~~~
varjag
I understand nuclear power generation on layman level (3 semesters of
university physics), but am opposed to it. Allow me to point out flaws in your
narrative:

\- people could have had bad first-hand experience with nuclear accidents. I
lived 200km downwind from Chernobyl and had to run for cover when it rained
first few months. My brother-in-law had his thyroid gland treated when he was
9. Sanitary food inspections still include contamination spot checks, 25 years
later.

\- Oil spills are largely non-argument. Oil is used primarily for gasoline
production and has only fringe role in energy production.

\- There is a great, clean fossil fuel in form of natural gas. It is indeed
widely used, in some countries in Europe it accounts for 95% of energy
production. Coal vs. nuclear is false dichotomy and mostly serves as
rhetorical device of proponents of nuclear.

\- Safety record of fossil fuel would be much, much higher if as much was
invested for safety per TWh as for nuclear. That said, natural gas is still on
par with nuclear w.r.t. safety.

\- With mass adoption of nuclear, which is now mostly concentrated in places
with high safety culture, the number and scale of disasters is bound to catch
up. Extrapolate the accident trend for growth up to 50% energy share, and it
would be more than simply linear.

\- Waste management. Enough said.

\- Overall attitude to opponents from nuclear advocates is off-putting. Just
because someone has a different view on energy policy does not mean he is a
simpleton, a fear-monger or illiterate.

~~~
roc
Having a different view is always welcome. Having a different view due
concerns not supported by the evidence, inequal standards and emotional
arguments is not.

Nuclear is not a silver bullet. Fossil fuel is not all bad.

You seem to be arguing against something other than what I wrote.

------
philk
Nowadays I have trouble looking at any mainstream news sites without being
incredibly disappointed.

I'd be willing to _give actual money_ to an organization that a) actually
understood what they were reporting and b) reported facts rather than PR,
hyperbole and human interest angles but I haven't been able to find one.

~~~
michael_dorfman
_I'd be willing to give_ actual money _to an organization that a) actually
understood what they were reporting and b) reported facts rather than PR,
hyperbole and human interest angles_

The New York Times would be happy to take that money off your hands. For all
of their failings, I'd argue that they generally meet both of your criteria.

------
JonnieCache
One reassuring datapoint: renowned eco-cheerleader Geroge Monbiot has a piece
thats garnering huge attention at the Guardian entitled "Why Fukushima made me
stop worrying and love nuclear power"

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-
nucl...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-
japan-fukushima)

He even links the xkcd diagram.

------
keyist
Another good resource is the Japan Subculture Research Center by Jake
Adelstein (American journalist who spent 12 years in Japan on the crime beat
for the Yomiuri Shinbun).

Sample post: the yakuza's role in relief efforts --
[http://www.japansubculture.com/2011/03/the-worst-of-times-
ca...](http://www.japansubculture.com/2011/03/the-worst-of-times-can-bring-
out-the-best-in-everyone-even-the-yakuza/)

PS. Off-topic, but calling Stross a "pop-sci-fi author" is an injustice! Kevin
Anderson and Orson Scott Card are pop-sci-fi authors. Stross writes hard
science fiction.

------
thret
Thanks for the link to Randall Munroe's chart, that was very interesting.

------
markbnine
I agree, nytimes.com has been insanely frantic. I can't figure out if they are
rabid anti-nuclear or they simply hate Japan. I recently stopped looking at
the site. But where does one go for well-written, in-depth news?

~~~
ams6110
<http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html> has decent info on
the reactors. Not sure who's doing good reporting on the human side of the
disaster.

------
andrewheins
I actually disagree with the author's point about the "main story". The main
story for me, and I'd wager for some of the other people on this board too, is
the story of the engineers who are still working to keep Fukushima under some
semblance of control. I really want to hear their story.

The critical piece of info I wanted to know that was missing from the XKCD
chart is where do the engineers working on Fukushima fall on his chart, and
what will be the impact on their lives.

I'm not a nuclear expert at all, and don't pretend to be - I'm a web
developer, but I still want to know if they could already be falling ill due
to radiation poisoning. To me, their story is the one that's the most
compelling and scary.

~~~
brown9-2
I think he may be referring to "main story" as in what the big story will be
when we look at this event years from now: 1) the deaths of ~10,000 people and
widespread destruction, or 2) a nuclear reactor incident in which the reaction
was bungled at first but ultimately was not a catastrophe for the larger
nation or world.

------
mryall
Tim has it exactly right. Searching some of the mainstream media sites in my
area of the world -- Fairfax (smh.com.au) and Fox (news.com.au) -- shows up no
results for 'tsunami' in their front page and world news section aside from
badly informed reports about the nuclear reactors.

That's a really sad indictment of the state of our media organisations and
where their focus lies.

~~~
Joakal
Big list of independent Australian media:
[http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/dw95o/big_list_of...](http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/dw95o/big_list_of_independent_australian_media/)

------
brown9-2
I think the main cause of what Tim describes here is not so much just general
media mediocrity (although that is relevant also), but the fact that most
people simply do not understand what radiation is, how it works, or even the
distinction between "safe" levels, "slightly higher than normal" levels, and
"dangerous" levels.

Fear of nuclear accidents and atom bombs has conditioned most people to react
negatively to any mention of the word "radioactive" - as if it is an all or
none situation. The general population has zero idea that you are exposed to
radiation when eating a banana or flying internationally.

This isn't an excuse - the mainstream media could do a lot of educating here -
but I have a feeling that those that work in the mainstream media don't even
begin to have any clue about the science behind this either.

~~~
arohner
My favorite joke about this is, as a TV broadcaster, it's not in their
interest to explain radiation.

CNN could correctly say, "living in California, you are exposed to more
radiation watching TV on a CRT than from Japan". Then the viewers say "WTF? My
TV is giving me radiation? _click_ ".

------
Estragon
Have I missed the point? Seems he's a bit slow on the uptake... I started to
realize how hopeless the mainstream media was in 2003, when Juan Cole was
talking on his blog about how important Muqtada al-Sadr was going to be in the
occupation of Iraq about 6 months before he showed up in mainstream coverage.
What cemented it for me was the prescient discussion of the mortgage crisis on
Calculated Risk and Roubini's blog, years before the crisis blew up, and in
the face of strident mainstream opposition towards the end. These days I don't
rely on any mainstream outlet as a regular source of news, though I read their
stuff when the blogs I read link to them.

------
mncolinlee
The problem is not nuclear disaster or nuclear alarmism. Stop shooting from
the hip! For DNDers, that's how you critically miss.

We should debate nuclear power on its merits and contingency planning, not
just its risk profile. Do you remember how many people used the argument that
deep water offshore drilling was safe because we used space age technology to
prevent spills PRIOR TO the great Gulf spill?

We should improve plant designs and reprocessing technology or else we're just
wasting money. We must continue improving testing and safety procedures or
we're simply trigger happy screwups, not engineers.

------
fogus
I suppose this is why more and more people that I know (in the US) are turning
to Der Spiegel and Al Jazeera for their news.

~~~
pinaceae
der spiegel lost a LOT of credibility due to its blatant anti-nuclear
messaging right from the beginning of the fukushima reports.

instead of explaining what the hell was happening, they started chernobyl
discussions and simply forgot about the actual disaster.

the media in german speaking countries went full retard of fukushima.

~~~
pmjordan
_the media in german speaking countries went full retard of fukushima_

I can confirm this for Austria. The country has always had a somewhat
schizophrenic relationship with nuclear energy[1], and the media (even
supposedly reputable papers like Die Presse) have gone into multi-page "OMG
second Chernobyl" hysteria mode. I sampled some articles - the amount of
factual errors is staggering. I've stopped reading any local news media as a
result; I have to assume I'm being fed propaganda the rest of the time, too.

[1] There is one nuclear power plant in the country. It never went into
operation: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Plant>
There is however, an operational research reactor. Anti-nuclear-energy-
sentiment is widespread (large majority); the fact that the energy imported
from neighbouring countries is largely generated by nuclear plants is
conveniently ignored; in fact, there are longstanding campaigns to pressure
the neighbouring countries to shut their plants down. I also find it amusing
that the IAEA is headquartered here.

------
hinathan
Tim wins for delightful (and insightful) quote of the day: "There have been
many reports about the people fleeing Tokyo. None of these narratives have
paused to consider whether the exodus constitutes chickenshit stupidity. I
suggest it maybe does."

------
gojomo
"Don't hate the media, become the media."

------
bluedanieru
I for one can't ever trust anything reported by any Western 'news' outlet
again, from Fox News to NPR. What's surprised me the most is the very poor
quality of the BBC reporting which is apparently worse than most American
companies.

