Skip to main content

Recycling Old News at the Christian Science Monitor

Lots of media critics -- at times unfairly I might add -- like to accuse reporters of being lazy when they cover the nuclear energy industry. Plenty of folks like to recycle the same old stories laden with interviews with the same old anti-nuclear activists over and over again.

We see it all the time here at NEI Nuclear Notes. But what we've never seen before is the same article, almost word for word, being recycled for audiences in the hopes that nobody notices what's really going on.

Case in point: Susan Sachs at the Christian Science Monitor. Back in July, the newspaper ran the following story with a European dateline:
Summer is exposing the chinks in Europe's nuclear power networks.

The extended heat wave in July aggravated drought conditions across much of Europe, lowering water levels in the lakes and rivers that many nuclear plants depend on to cool their reactors.

As a result, utility companies in France, Spain, and Germany were forced to take some plants offline and reduce operations at others. Across Western Europe, nuclear plants also had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment.
I'm sure plenty of our readers remember the story, as my colleague Lisa Stiles-Shell debunked a few days after it appeared. For another take, click here.

But I guess once wasn't enough for Sachs and the Monitor, because at the end of last week, the following ran on the paper's newswire around the world:
Summer exposed the chinks in Europe's nuclear power networks.

The extended heat wave in July aggravated drought conditions across much of Europe, lowering water levels in the lakes and rivers that many nuclear plants depend on to cool their reactors.

As a result, utility companies in France, Spain and Germany were forced to take some plants offline and reduce operations at others.

Across Western Europe, nuclear plants also had to secure exemptions from regulations in order to discharge overheated water into the environment.
I know it isn't plagiarism if you're plagiarising your own work, but this is ridiculous. Does the paper actually think that because they changed verb tenses in the first paragraph that this isn't simply a 100% cut and paste job? Again, here's Sachs from the Monitor on August 10:
The troubles of the nuclear industry did not end there. Sweden shut four of its 10 nuclear reactors after a short-circuit cut power at one plant on July 26, raising fears of a dangerous design flaw. One week later, Czech utility officials shut down one of the country's six nuclear reactors because of what they described as a serious mechanical problem that led to the leak of radioactive water.
And now again, from November 11:
The troubles of the nuclear industry did not end there. Sweden shut four of its 10 nuclear reactors after a short- circuit cut power at one plant on July 26, raising fears of a dangerous design flaw. One week later, Czech utility officials shut down one of the country's six nuclear reactors because of what they described as a serious mechanical problem that led to the leak of radioactive water.
I guess I could go through both pieces paragraph by paragraph, but that would be a waste of time. Just go take a look yourself and gaze in awe at the Monitor's nervy performance.

The next question we need to ask is why this happened. Are the editors at the paper so arrogant that they think their readers wouldn't notice? Or were they disappointed that their incomplete story, one without a rejoinder from the nuclear industry, didn't get as much attention as they would have hoped in a late-Summer news cycle?

Even better, since the Monitor likes to recycle old news, we're going to recycle some of our own: A report from a Department of Energy engineer who found that California's wind turbines failed miserably during the state's Summer heat wave.

I wonder why the Monitor failed to pick up on that news? Then again, some questions answer themselves, don't they?

UPDATE: Over at NEI's media relations desk, my colleague Steve Kerekes passed the following along to me:
Just spoke w/ an editor from CSM's int'l desk; this is a case of an outlet (I don't know which, sorry, unless and until Scott Peters can find what triggered the Google pull) publishing the old article.

CSM did not re-issue the Aug. 10 piece.
Thanks to Steve for the followup (Scott Peters handles our news clips). That would mean that the Hamilton Spectator, the paper that picked up the piece, was responsible for editing in the time shift. Why in the world would anybody pick up a story off the wire that was 3 months old?

TUESDAY UPDATE: The Hamilton Spectator has removed the above referenced article from its Web site. Nothing to see here...

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
Good job on calling foul on this one! Make sure to follow the Hamilton Spectator links below!

I have a feeling that the article was reprinted in the context of some discussion of Ontario's future electrical needs.

The Ontario Power Authority (OPA) plans to release a report [hasn't been posted yet - scheduled for early November] that will recommend technical improvements to the transmission line from the Bruce nuclear plant to Toronto to handle more power, and also may recommend that the province consider a few different nuclear alternatives.

One of the alternatives would be to build a nuclear generating station in Nanticoke on the shores of Lake Erie, which would replace a coal-fired plant that may be closed in a few years. The report will probably mention more likely choices of constructing new facilities at the established nuclear energy sites at Bruce on Lake Huron and/or Darlington on Lake Ontario.

There's some resistance to closing the coal-fired power plant at Nanticoke.

Obviously, giving the context doesn't make it right for the CSM or the Hamilton Spectator to rehash biased articles that have long since gone to the recycle bin, or have been disposed of weeks ago as kitty litter box liners. However, it does give the general source of the discussion that led to the cop-out.
Rod Adams said…
One of the great strengths of electronic publishing is that there is no need for news to be thought of as a temporary, disposable product that ends up lining kitty litter boxes or wrapping crabs. (In Annapolis, the local paper is nicknamed "The Crab Wrapper".)

I see no real problem in linking to archived news articles or even republishing them (properly dated and attributed, of course) so that people remember events that are important. I agree that the particular article referenced in this case was not very balanced - all steam plants need lots and lots of cooling water; it makes no real difference whether the steam is created by burning coal or by fissioning uranium.

IMHO the reuse of news has the potential for increasing our collective memory and for improving the quality of the original articles - if media outlets realize just how valuable their archived content can be, perhaps they will take just a little more care when creating it.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin