Followers of the FOX network television show 24 are aware that the prime-time show has made cybersecurity at nuclear power plants the focus of the storyline in a recent arc of episodes.
Earlier this season, terrorists stole a device from a defense contractor that could trigger meltdowns at all of the nation'’s nuclear power plants. Eventually, the good guys won, but not before the terrorists caused a meltdown at a nuclear plant in Southern Califorinia.
Entertaining? Depends on how much you suspend belief.
Realistic? More like ridiculous!
No such device exists that would allow remote control over nuclear plant operations and safety systems at nuclear power plants are deliberately designed NOT to connect to the Internet. In truth, most safety functions are performed by federally licensed control room operators and are analog, not digital systems.
But does Fox Entertainment Group care about offering alarmist and unfounded information that may needlessly raise public fears about the security of nuclear power plants? Not based on my own dealings with the Fox Entertainment Group.
Our President and CEO, Skip Bowman, sent a letter to Gail Berman, president of Fox Entertainment Group, on February 10 urging the network to air a disclaimer to ensure that viewers would not be alarmed unnecessarily. An excerpt follows:
A disclaimer would not have been unprecedented as the network had “24” star Kiefer Sutherland read a disclaimer during the February 7 episode encouraging viewers not to view the actions of the Muslim terrorists in the show as a generalization of the beliefs of law-abiding American Muslims.
This disclaimer was the result of dialogue between Fox and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
But when I called Fox a day after the letter was faxed to Ms. Berman, and spoke with Scott Grogan, head of Fox Entertainment corporate communications, it seemed the network wasn’t interested what we had to say.
Grogan told me Gail Berman saw the letter and that he appreciated the nuclear industry’'s position but they would not issue a disclaimer because 24 is a purely "fictional" program. I responded by asking if that was the case why did they feel compelled to issue a disclaimer last week about the depiction of "fictional" Arab terrorists?
He answered by saying, "“Let me stop you right there, we don't have to explain our policy to anyone!”" I left it by saying they apparently placed more value on adhering to the concerns of the CAIR to avoid slandering a group of people but had no trouble slandering an industry. So much for a level playing field.
UPDATE: Welcome to readers of 27B Stroke 6. Feel free to stay a while and check out the rest of our commentary on the commercial nuclear industry.
Earlier this season, terrorists stole a device from a defense contractor that could trigger meltdowns at all of the nation'’s nuclear power plants. Eventually, the good guys won, but not before the terrorists caused a meltdown at a nuclear plant in Southern Califorinia.
Entertaining? Depends on how much you suspend belief.
Realistic? More like ridiculous!
No such device exists that would allow remote control over nuclear plant operations and safety systems at nuclear power plants are deliberately designed NOT to connect to the Internet. In truth, most safety functions are performed by federally licensed control room operators and are analog, not digital systems.
But does Fox Entertainment Group care about offering alarmist and unfounded information that may needlessly raise public fears about the security of nuclear power plants? Not based on my own dealings with the Fox Entertainment Group.
Our President and CEO, Skip Bowman, sent a letter to Gail Berman, president of Fox Entertainment Group, on February 10 urging the network to air a disclaimer to ensure that viewers would not be alarmed unnecessarily. An excerpt follows:
Your recent arc of episodes of “24” centered on the remote takeover and possible destruction of U.S. nuclear power plants may be entertaining, but it is unrealistic and holds the potential to needlessly frighten viewers who are unaware that no such remote override device exists. To ensure that viewers in the post-9/11 world are not are alarmed unnecessarily by a fictional plot line that they may interpret to be a realistic one, I strongly urge you to air a disclaimer during the February 14 episode that makes this distinction clear.
A disclaimer would not have been unprecedented as the network had “24” star Kiefer Sutherland read a disclaimer during the February 7 episode encouraging viewers not to view the actions of the Muslim terrorists in the show as a generalization of the beliefs of law-abiding American Muslims.
This disclaimer was the result of dialogue between Fox and the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR).
But when I called Fox a day after the letter was faxed to Ms. Berman, and spoke with Scott Grogan, head of Fox Entertainment corporate communications, it seemed the network wasn’t interested what we had to say.
Grogan told me Gail Berman saw the letter and that he appreciated the nuclear industry’'s position but they would not issue a disclaimer because 24 is a purely "fictional" program. I responded by asking if that was the case why did they feel compelled to issue a disclaimer last week about the depiction of "fictional" Arab terrorists?
He answered by saying, "“Let me stop you right there, we don't have to explain our policy to anyone!”" I left it by saying they apparently placed more value on adhering to the concerns of the CAIR to avoid slandering a group of people but had no trouble slandering an industry. So much for a level playing field.
UPDATE: Welcome to readers of 27B Stroke 6. Feel free to stay a while and check out the rest of our commentary on the commercial nuclear industry.
Comments