Is there anything more tedious than hearing someone rant about media bias? (Of course there is, but for the sake of this blog post, the answer to the rhetorical question is, "no.") And while I'm sure those who call in to C-SPAN's Washington Journal to expose the agenda of the moderator* are certain they are saving the Republic, I'm not one of 'em. That said, this lede from The Scotsman, caught my eye:A THOUSAND new nuclear power stations are needed across the world to tackle the oil crisis, Gordon Brown warned yesterday.Warned?
Here's how London's Independent wrote the story,
Gordon Brown has signalled he wants Britain to play a major role in the race to build an extra 1,000 nuclear power stations across the world as part of his vision for ending the global "addiction to oil".And The Guardian,
Brown also suggested it would be necessary to build 1,000 nuclear power stations worldwide to combat climate change and end what he described as the world's oil addiction.And the BBC,
Speaking at his monthly media conference, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said the world may need another 1,000 nuclear power stations to bolster energy security and fight climate change.So what am I saying? The Scotsman reporter, Ross Lydall, is clearly not a fan of nuclear and his editorializing is showing. Meanwhile, The Independent, The Guardian (both left-leaning papers), and the BBC all stick to straight reporting.
* Full Discloure: I have a bit of a media crush on Greta Wodele.
Comments
Hey now!
Found this buried in a BBC liveblog (?!) of Brown's press conference. I wonder if the journalist asking the question was Ross Lydall.
>1130: A journalist asked how many of the 1,000 new nuclear power stations which Mr Brown suggested might need to be built around the world would be constructed in Scotland. The prime minister does not give a figure, instead stressing the need to replace existing nuclear power stations in the UK, and the importance of the current consultation on the matter.