---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FAIR <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Apr 18, 2007 10:33 AM
Subject: CBS's Nuclear Revival

Action Alert

CBS's Nuclear Revival
60 Minutes' critic-free boosterism


On April 8, the CBS newsmagazine 60 Minutes aired a segment about the
"resounding success" of the French nuclear power program, suggesting that
"emission-free" nuclear power might offer an easy solution to the problem of
climate change. The report protected this dubious assertion from skeptical
scrutiny by failing to quote a single bona fide critic of the nuclear

The segment was titled "Vive Les Nukes," which gave a good indication of the
slant it took. Describing it as "an efficient means of producing large
amounts of carbon-free energy," correspondent Steve Kroft announced at the
top of the segment that nuclear power is "a technology whose time seemed to
come and go, and may now be coming again." The notion of a nuclear power
renaissance was bolstered by CBS's choice of interview guests—the program
spoke only to nuclear power supporters (in France and elsewhere), thereby
allowing their rhetoric to go unchallenged.

Guests on the segment were French energy official Pierre Gadonniex, French
nuclear industry executive Bertrande Durrande, White House deputy secretary
of energy Clay Sell (Bush's "point man on nuclear power"), French nuclear
executive Anne Lauvergeon, MIT nuclear researcher Andrew Kadak and David
Jhirhad of the World Resources Institute, described as "an environmental
think tank in Washington."

Jhirhad was the only potentially balancing source, but he is quoted only to
make Kroft's point that "even some environmental groups are taking a second
look at nuclear power." This is an emerging line in much of the corporate
media (e.g., Washington Post, 4/16/06; New York Times, 2/27/07), though the
actual number of green groups embracing nuclear power is quite small. The
World Resources Institute receives contributions from several energy
companies and other major polluters, information that would have been useful
for CBS viewers in evaluating Jhirad's claim that the nuclear industry's
"safety record has been pretty good."

The segment's one-sided sourcing was made all the more problematic when the
White House's Sell claimed that "no serious person can look at the challenge
of greenhouse gases and climate change and not come to the conclusion that
nuclear power has to play a significant and growing role in meeting that
challenge worldwide." Of course, "serious people" do question precisely
that--and CBS should have interviewed them.

Excluding such sources meant excluding important information. While France's
nuclear power is portrayed as widely popular, CBS failed to mention large
protests held across the country on March 17 (Agence France Presse, 3/17/07)
against construction of a new nuclear plant. Nor, in touting the massive
nuclear reprocessing plant France has built in Normandy, did the show refer
to the radiation it releases into the English Channel (NIRS Nuclear Monitor,
3-4/00) or the cluster of leukemia cases occurring around the plant (British
Medical Journal, 1/11/97).

Kroft even adopts industry-friendly language in describing the push to
revive U.S. nuclear power, discussing the "financial incentives" and
"streamlined regulatory system" intended to encourage nuclear energy
development. Such "incentives" might better be described as government
subsides, which have long been criticized by nuclear industry critics as a
waste of taxpayers' money. Unmentioned in the CBS report were similar
subsidies in France; according to the U.S.-based Institute for Energy and
Environmental Research (5/4/06), $1 billion a year in government subsidies
go to plutonium production alone.

Excluding critical voices allowed grossly misleading information to go
unchallenged, as when nuclear executive Lauvergeon claimed, in the segment's
conclusion, that "wind and solar are, you know, temporary sources of energy.
It works when you have wind, it works when you have sun. No sun, no wind, no
energy. You don't want to watch TV only when you have wind." Of course, wind
and solar energy are not "temporary" sources of energy; power generated by
both can be stored. Airing this sort of misinformation eliminates any real
consideration of viable alternatives to nuclear energy.

At one point, Kroft says that "the Bush administration is pushing a nuclear
revival." The same could be said for CBS.

Contact 60 Minutes to ask why its report on nuclear energy excluded the
views of the industry's numerous critics.

CBS 60 Minutes
[log in to unmask]
(212) 975-3247

Our subscriber list is kept confidential.  To unsubscribe from this list at
any time, visit our web at: follow the
instructions.  Or send an email to
[log in to unmask] with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

Feel free to respond to FAIR ( [log in to unmask] ). We can't reply to
everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of
your email correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to
[log in to unmask]

Your donation to FAIR goes a long way.  Help us hold mainstream media
accountable.  Make a difference -- support FAIR today!

If you would prefer to receive these messages in HTML format, please visit
our website to change your Email Preferences. Go to:

Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media

FAIR SHIRTS: Get your "Don't Trust the Corporate Media" shirt today at
FAIR's online store:

FAIR produces CounterSpin, a weekly radio show heard on over 130 stations in
the U.S. and Canada. To find the CounterSpin station nearest you, visit

(212) 633-6700
E-mail: [log in to unmask]