🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3342F233.7D73@deltanet.com>,
J Hughes  <yayaokok@deltanet.com> wrote:
>Forwarded for information.
>
>Anti-nuclear activists mobilize against Frontline documentary
>
>Originally published in Current, March 31, 1997 
>
>By Karen Everhart Bedford 
>
>Environmentalists and consumer groups are objecting to an upcoming 
>Frontline documentary that suggests irrational public fear has driven 
>America's rejection of nuclear power. 

I'd suggest it, too. 

>Reacting to Frontline's press release for the April 22 [1997] broadcast, 
>anti-nuclear groups have gone public with their complaints about 
>"Nuclear Reactions," which they characterize as "unbalanced, 
>retrogressive, inaccurate and misleading," according to a press advisory 
>to be released on March 31. 

Does this mean that these people have actually seen it? All of the
people objecting? How did they all get to see an April 22 broadcast?

>"The world has changed and Frontline has held on to some antiquated 
>freeze-frame," said Scott Denman, executive director of Washington-based 
>Safe Energy Communications Council, one of five organizations signing 
>the press release. He said PBS was doing "a tremendous disservice" by 
>spending an hour of primetime "rehashing irrelevant irrelevancies" and 
>not discussing "current, timely issues regarding our energy future." 
>Documentaries on the financing of nuclear power under utility 
>deregulation or the search for viable, sustainable energy alternatives 
>would have been more timely uses of airtime, he said. 

So the members of these five organizations have already seen this
program? And ethy want everyone else to join in the protest sight
unseen? Hmmm.

>At Current's deadline, Greenpeace, Public Citizen, the Nuclear 
>Information and Resource Service, and the Union of Concerned Scientists 
>had joined the SECC in criticizing the documentary. The groups went 
>public after Frontline rebuffed their private appeals to revise the 
>film. 
>
>Convinced that "Nuclear Reactions" would not be substantively different 
>than the film described in the press release, the groups are asking the 
>media to consider their complaints in reviewing it. 

Ah. They haven't seen it.

Why are they so desperate to give a documentary tehy object to all this
publicity? I mean, Frontiline isn't exactly up ther with 60 Minutes and
Dateline in the ratings.

"[W]e believe it is 
>essential that the public be informed as to the serious problems with 
>the inaccuracies and biases in the show." 
>
>"This is basically an intimidation campaign," said Jon Palfreman, a 
>veteran producer for Nova and Frontline who now works as an independent. 
>He said Frontline's press release, written provocatively to get TV 
>critics to watch the program, was to anti-nuclear activists like a "flag 
>to the bull." 

The ploy appears to have worked.

>The release is setting off political action "to modify or sway or stop a 
>piece of journalism." 
>
>"These activists are doing what they are trained to do--they're seizing 
>what they see as a political opportunity," commented David Fanning, 
>senior executive producer for Frontline. "I suggest they wait and review 
>the program when it's broadcast." 

Outrageous! Honestly. You mean he thinks they ought to *see* the show
before they object? I mean really. Does Jesse Helms see movies before
he condemns them?

>PBS will air "Nuclear Reactions" on Earth Day, April 22, a scheduling 
>decision that "only compounds the insult," wrote Bill Magavern, an 
>energy specialist for Public Citizen, in a letter to Frontline. 

>At the same time, many public TV stations are participating in the 
>Public Television Outreach Alliance's new campaign, "Earth & Us," which 
>takes a traditional pro-environmental approach. 
>
>"It's sad and disappointing to see something like this," said Denman. 
>Frontline is recognized for hard-hitting, well documented journalism. 
>"We want the film to be changed to make it accurate and make it cutting 
>edge." 

Nothing really specific to object to? Accurate how?

>Psychology of risk
>
>That the program would inspire controversy comes as somewhat of a relief 
>to Palfreman, who said his "greatest fear was that this film would be 
>ignored." He described himself as an award-winning science journalist 
>with "an interest in complicated policy stories," especially subjects 
>that "really agitate people." 

Yep. I thought so. Those activists played right into the producers'
hands. Unbelievable.

[...]

>Fifty years ago, nuclear technology was born in war, a scientific 
>breakthrough that he compared to the discovery of fire because it 
>offered an "incredible new source of energy." After World War II, many 
>physicists optimistically set out to "harness the energy for mankind." 
>
>"Their dream was to make energy that was too cheap to meter." 
>
>In "Nuclear Reactions," Palfreman and correspondent Richard Rhodes, a 
>Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian and author of The Making of the Atomic 
>Bomb, look at what has happened between then and now, as the failing 
>industry faces its imminent demise in this country. 
>
>"My aim is certainly not to rehabilitate the industry," explained 
>Palfreman. "It's more an analysis of what happened." 

Nope. His job is to get people to watch the show. 

[...]

>The producer himself is a target of some criticism in complaints about 
>the film. Magavern's letter describes Palfreman's conduct during an 
>interview with consumer advocate Ralph Nader as "extremely 
>argumentative" and unprofessional. 

Oh. Well. That proves the show must be shit. No need to actually watch
it.

[...]


-- 
   *********** DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@netcom.com) ***********
   * In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king... *
   *  Until they find out he can see, then they kill him   *
   *********************************************************