Reason #328 the AP Disappoints Me

Ooh, goody. I love it when the local paper publishes my snarky letters. Actually, for as much as I complain about the newspaper in my small town, I have to say I still support print journalism. At least the Register-Guard attempts to set standards, whereas the AP is seemingly OK with running biased stories written by reporters determined to find — and then report sensationally on — government malfeasance. Even the NYTimes, in writing stories about the chauvinistic corporate culture at the LA Times, phoned the paper for a response before running the story. At any rate, here’s my letter, as well as a link to the AP article I was whining about. The thing that really gets me is that, on the AP’s website, there is a memo from the editor commending reporter Jeff Donn for speaking to a variety of credible people, not just anti-nuclear activists. Uh . . . yes, well, it’s all in the ratio, Mr. Donn. A few scientists does not balance out myriad activists from organizations like Beyond Nuclear and the Union of Concerned Scientists (a group which I usually agree with, but which is extremely skeptical of nuclear power).

AP shows anti-nuclear bias

I was disappointed to see the June 27 Associated Press story on nuclear plant safety. The Register-Guard is responsible for ensuring the integrity of the wire stories it publishes. Nuclear safety may be an important topic, but the AP story was full of shoddy, biased journalism.

It quotes statements by Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Gregory Jaczko, but apparently neglected to contact anyone at the NRC for a reaction to the AP’s accusations of insufficient evacuation planning and fudging of population statistics. A legitimate story would have included a response from the NRC, even if it was an anodyne reassurance about being committed to the highest safety standards.

The story includes no rebuttal from anyone in the government, instead relying solely on previously published documents, and seemingly cherry-picks statements from officials designed to bolster the reporter’s conclusions.

Despite this lack of comment by anyone supporting nuclear power, the article manages to quote numerous activists from organizations described not as anti-nuclear but as having “pressed for reviews of emergency community planning before relicensing.” The article ascribes motives to government agencies based on assumptions, not facts.

The author writes that “government and industry officials also tended to underestimate projected growth ­­— picking numbers that helped win approval for favored sites.”

While it may be a fact that officials underestimated population growth, the AP has no way of knowing those officials’ motives. It cannot prove, and should not suggest that it can, that the estimates derived from a nefarious desire to massage the numbers.

Emily Keizer

For your further reading enjoyment, I’ll also include the semi-irate e-mail I sent to the AP. Note: I am aware that I have way too much time on my hands. But once I get a bee in my bonnet, I can’t relax until I’ve thoroughly swatted it. Also note: The AP does not write back. There’s not even an automated “thank you for your submission” e-mail — props, once again, to the Register-Guard.

In the most recent article in your “Aging Nukes” series (which, considering that “nukes” often refers to nuclear weapons, seems to be a sensationalist and inaccurate title), Jeff Donn states that “During its Aging Nukes investigation, the AP conducted scores of interviews and analyzed thousands of pages of industry and government records, reports and data.” Why, if the AP possesses so many crucial records and documents, has it not posted at least a portion of those records online? The New York Times regularly makes documents available to readers; indeed, its recent investigation into natural gas wells and hydrofracking was a wonderful example of how the Internet can enable readers to directly examine source documents. Records obtained through FOIA requests should be made public, not kept in the AP vaults and made available only to the organization’s reporters. When I read a story in the Times, I may not always like what it has to say, but because I can look through the original documents, there is little doubt that the Times bases its reporting on facts. By contrast, the AP’s stories on nuclear safety are written to make a specific point — nuclear reactors are unsafe — and seem to have been designed from the outset to condemn government regulators. The AP rarely includes a reaction from the government; most statements from NRC officials are from public speeches made months ago. A reputable journalist would at least have asked the government for a response; even if that response were an anodyne “we’re committed to the highest levels of safety,” a good reporter would have included that statement in the story. But the AP seems to have started this investigation with a foregone conclusion. It wanted to find malfeasance, and so it did. And because the AP has neglected to provide even a portion of the “thousands of pages of industry and government records,” the reader comes away with profound doubts as to the impartiality and truth of Mr. Donn’s reporting. “Aging Nukes” could have been an important and well-written series, but as it stands, the stories are simply another example of crusading, “gotcha” journalism.

Emily Keizer