12 ms·
Mainstream Failure
- thret 16y agoThanks for the link to Randall Munroe's chart, that was very interesting.
- markbnine 16y agoI 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 16y agohttp://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html 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.
- mryall 16y agoTim 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 16y agoBig list of independent Australian media: http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/dw95o/big_list_of_independent_australian_media/ http://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/dw95o/big_list_of...
- heyitsnick 16y agoReally it's a sad indictment of what sells.
- bluedanieru 16y agoI 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.
- fogus 16y agoI 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 16y agoder 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.
- fogus 16y agoInteresting. I was not aware of that. Would you say that Der Spiegel's news is generally credible?
- pmjordan 16y agothe 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 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.
- darklajid 16y agoAgreed. I currently have a hard time finding _any_ usuable information in German. I quickly turned away from all media here, following the "Why I'm not worried.." and its follow-up submissions on this site instead. Spiegel et al failed. The whole media message over here is "nuclear power is far too dangerous, look at Japan" and nothing more.
- pieter 16y agoOne 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-idUSL3E7EL0UN20110321 http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/21/japan-refinery-idU... http://www.flickr.com/photos/enciclopediapt/5523005370/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/enciclopediapt/5523005370/
- roc 16y agoNuclear 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-other-energy-disasters-from-the-last-year/72814/ http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/03/25-oth... (25 fossil fuel energy disasters from 2010, claiming 668 lives)
- Chocobean 16y agoindeed: when people clamor that everyone should re-think nuclear power, we should actually look at the human cost of the current alternatives. For example, the news is happy to report that China will be building 50 reactors in the future. (One even said that that's almost as many as there are in the rest of the world; completely untrue). But should China really stay with coal mines? How many people do they think die from coal mining every year, to say nothing of the refinery and pollution? 2631 in 2009, 3215 in 2008, nearly 7000 in 2002.
- varjag 16y agoI 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.
- philk 16y agoNowadays 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 16y agoI'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.
- carols10cents 16y agoI have been consistently impressed by the reporting done by propublica: http://propublica.org http://propublica.org
- keyist 16y agoAnother 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-can-bring-out-the-best-in-everyone-even-the-yakuza/ http://www.japansubculture.com/2011/03/the-worst-of-times-ca... 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.
- JonnieCache 16y agoOne 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-nuclear-japan-fukushima http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nucl... He even links the xkcd diagram.
- andrewheins 16y agoI 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 16y agoI 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.
- shareme 16y agoIt should be noted that unlike the USSR disaster those who are manning the Japan Nuclear control efforts at the damaged plants are being closely monitored and taken off that duty before any level of getting ill is being reached. That not only includes nuclear workers but the emergency firemen, etc.
- jrwoodruff 16y agoI 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-japanese-in-fear-as-residents-worry-about-another-big-one/2011/03/21/ABYNwA7_story.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/aftershocks-keep-japanes... 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.washingtonpost.com/world/japan-earthquake-and-tsu... http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/ http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1104ap_as_japan_earthquake_bank_robbery.html http://www.seattlepi.com/national/1104ap_as_japan_earthquake... http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-japan-earthquake_N.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-21-japan-earthqua... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22predict.html?ref=asia http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/science/22predict.html?ref... http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-aging-20110322,0,1303885.story http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-japan-ag... edit to add links
- bballant 16y agoI agree. Cable news is horrendous. On the other hand, the photos of the tsunami devestation published by the Boston Globe alone tell a story that is deeper and richer than anything else I've seen or read on the matter.
- parasubvert 16y agoThe New York Times front page story has been a poor source of information since this crisis began, basically being a disjointed summery of "who said what" with a sensationalist headline. When radiation levels were falling (according to other sources), the Times headline stood as "nuclear meltdown near imminent" or something to that effect. IMO,!f you came looking for realistic analysis or summarization of the facts as known, you had to scour both mainstream and non-mainstream sources and piece it together above the melodrama.
- brown9-2 16y agoI 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 16y agoMy 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".
- erikstarck 16y agoI 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.
- sleepingbot 16y ago+1.
- sleepingbot 16y agoAlso, informing this is my last day at Hacker News as an active user. Will limit myself to see the feeds once on a while. Thank you.
- achompas 16y agoThis is the internet. Sometimes people pile on. Don't get too worked up over it! Here, I'll toss you an upvote.
- sleepingbot 16y ago+1
- sleepingbot 16y ago+1
- 16y ago
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- hinathan 16y agoTim 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."
- Estragon 16y agoHave 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.
- gojomo 16y ago"Don't hate the media, become the media."
- mncolinlee 16y agoThe 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.