backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by mkrech.. on Mar 18 at 12:23 PM


Today's MSNBC report on U.S. nuclear risks misinterpreted government data and overstated realistic risks by as much as two orders of magnitude. For example the site stated that the Indian Point 3 reactor (pictured) had a 1 in 10,000 chance of core damage from an earthquake. The actual estimate is one in 670,000.  (Source: Mike Segar / Reuters)

Misinformed by the media, many in the public are stocking up on radiation pills and suggesting banning nuclear power.  (Source: FOE Europe)

The Japanese government is also releasing contradictory and alarming information. According to its latest statement no cores have been breached, so there's no immediate danger to the population, even in this "worst case" scenario.  (Source: The Times)
Fear, uncertainty, disinformation -- news sites offer misinformation, speculation on nuclear power for profit





Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: MSNBC.....
By nafhan on 3/16/2011 5:30:49 PM , Rating: 2
Do you understand what the point of a news agency is? Apparently not... I'll let you in on the secret: it's to make money by entertaining the consumers who pay for it (or watch the advertising). So, getting people to consume more news is generally at the top of any news agency's priority list. Fear and misunderstanding works pretty well in that regard.

The best you can do is pick the degree and the direction of the slant you get, and honestly, that can be very difficult to determine. If you are interested in "the truth", checking multiple news agencies from multiple countries and applying a teensy bit of common sense and subject matter knowledge will go a long way. That's more than you can expect from most people, though.


RE: MSNBC.....
By sprockkets on 3/16/2011 10:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you understand what the point of a news agency is? Apparently not... I'll let you in on the secret: it's to make money by entertaining the consumers who pay for it (or watch the advertising).


You are confusing a news agency with a 24hrs news channel that features more than just the news, but editorials and other guests to discuss their opinion. Of course again The Daily Show called BS on Fox News again that their time devoted to news was also overly skewed.

What I'm obviously pointing out earlier that the left leaning MSNBC has the environmentalists as their demographic and thus aired what they aired.

But if I watch world news on the 3 major networks, I expect journalism with very little bias, or equal coverage of both sides. In their case, they are not going to win people over with "entertainment" as you put it.


RE: MSNBC.....
By nafhan on 3/17/2011 10:54:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying that to diminish the importance of keeping abreast of world events, and I wasn't meaning that it's impossible for a news agency to be impartial. I'm merely saying "follow the money", and look at how and where news agencies get their cash.

You are right in that the major bureaus can't afford to appear as biased as the networks that deliver the content. Same principles still apply, though.

As a side note, even though the events in the news are often serious, for many people, the news is nothing more than entertainment. They don't do anything with the info (i.e. "Earthquake in Japan. Sad. What's on next?").


RE: MSNBC.....
By nafhan on 3/17/2011 10:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
Also, when I said "That's more than you can expect from most people", that wasn't specifically directed at you. Sorry if it came off that way!


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs










botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki