How to understand this piece from a motivational point of view? One can hardly consider this anything more than an exercise in state-sponsored propaganda (dw is

How to understand this piece from a motivational point of view? One can hardly consider this anything more than an exercise in state-sponsored propaganda (dw is state financed) and disinformation. The scientists who opine on nuclear energy value (and portable nuclear reactors in particular) in the path to energy transition are: Michael E. Mann - climate science Jan Haverkamp - Greenpeace spokes person Robert Howarth - ecologists There is no point of inventing the wheel for this now model of modern media. T. Sowell identified the pattern (framework) of how elites (anointed) operate. There is not attempt to use facts to make a decision about reality, facts are only valid as far as they support decisions already made. Those who support the anointed in their quest of forcing their model of reality onto public (to validate their own view of themselves in the world) are given special state of grace (given voice, prestige, and some money). * This is not an argument for/against modular n.r. -- that is far more complex issue, and touches on IAEA rules, lost knowledge from the major players in the sector of technology, etc. This is just an observation on the "news" piece itself.