nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry

New York times set straight on all things nuclear by Fiona Fox and the Science Media Network (Plus a few good lawyers)

 

OP Ed Arclight2011part2

arclightDate 11 May 2014

Posted to nuclear-news.net

OK so 16th March 2014 the NY TIMES prints an article about media censorship where scientists are reported to not be able to talk to the press and are steered clear of doing studies that concern the Daichi power plant in Japan.. the reason for this is the Japanese government using the likes of the Science Media Centre in Japan set up by Herr Fiona Fox of the UK Science Media Centre.. Funding is also impossible to get for studies.. Then on the 17 March 2014 the NYtimes is asked to post this retraction ..

“Correction: March 17, 2014

An earlier version of the headline with this article misstated the actions of the Japanese government. There are deep differences over how to determine the health impact of the Fukushima disaster. The authorities are not ‘‘squelching”efforts to measure the effects of the accident. “

Of course the dispute is from Prof. Richard Wakeford and Prof. Geraldine Thomas of the UK nuclear lobby who say that radiation is generally a good thing…

HAHAHA !! HERR Fiona Fox and her USA branch “sense about Science” strikes again, giving the “right ” science approach … And we wondered why the NY times recently did a Pro Nuke article.. UMMMMM?

Looks like the editorial staff got a letter from a solicitor eh? and they had to go to the USA equivalent of the Goebbels like Science media Centre (SMC)for some reprogramming.

Heres what the Japanese Science Media Centre has to say about the “right ” Science;

As Asia’s first Science Media Centre, our goal is to help give science a voice on a national and international scale.  Developing the Science Media Centre of Japan (SMCJ) began in 2008, when we found that although the country had a strong R&D industry, scientists were unwilling to talk to the media and focused on talking to the scientific community.

We also found that although the media regarded science as important, there was an overflow of science information, and they had difficulty in finding a scientist who could explain things in a way the average citizen could understand.

As a way to bridge the communication gap between scientists and the media, the SMCJ opened up for service in 2010.  We have been helping scientists share their knowledge about controversial issues with the media in order to help society get access to accurate and good quality information.

Not long after we opened, we were faced with covering the March 11 earthquake, tsunami, and Fukushima.  A huge challenge for a new SMC, but amidst the chaos we managed to send out reliable information, and gain respect from the science community.

Working in Japanese and English has enabled us to take the extra step.  As part of the SMC network, we have been able to help the Japanese and overseas media get in touch with scientists from both sides. http://www.sciencemediacentre.net/smc-japan.html

Screenshot from 2013-09-26 13:41:54

Herr Fiona Fox

Does science just right for the corporations


Ewen Callaway

10 July 2013

“..Regardless, the SMC model is now spreading around the world, with the latest franchise slated to open in the United States around 2016. The centres are all run independently, but they abide by a unified charter crafted by Fox.

This means that Fox is about to take her message to a much wider audience. “I think there are problems with her reach,” says Connie St Louis, director of the science-journalism course at City University London and one of Fox’s loudest critics. “She’s becoming one of the most powerful people in science.”…”

“…That is a message that Fox has honed well since establishing the SMC in London in 2002. The centre’s aim is to get scientific voices into media coverage and policy debates …”

“… “Our philosophy is we’ll get the media to DO science better when scientists DO the media better,” says Fox. …”

http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362

Nature also funded the SMC UK :0

The UK government tells the SMC to manage the news..
The SMC is pro fracking and pro GMO too!
basically pro big buisness…
I think you were to kind with Cameron Christine.. The UK is managing climate change by saying it will be too far into the future to have any immediate effects. even after the weird weather and flooding we have been having in the UK over the winter. Also, they are commissioning some weather modification studies and has asked the SMC to deal with it.. So no articles on weather modification..

The SMC is funded and supported by petroleum, nuclear, pharma, BBC and the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC UK) etc etc

follow the money! The SMC did


 

I would like to bring to your attention the mechanism by which science journalism is being undermined.. It may explain George Monbiot`s conversion to the nuclear industry among other things. This mechanism is the Science Media Centers of the world and the nuclear industry driven PR machine
Before SMC
Extra George Monbiot event
After SMC
monbiot41
科学ジャーナリストの地位が弱体化しているメカニズムについて、目を向けてほしいと思います。 多分このことから、原発関連についてのGeorge Monbiotの会話の内容が、理解できるであろうと私は、思っています。このメカニズムは、世界の科学メディアセンターや広告マシーンと化してしまった原発産業のことを、物語っている。 
There is growing evidence that the existence of SMCs is also encouraging news organizations to downgrade science reporters. Recently the newspaper The Australian sacked its science reporter, Leigh Dayton. The reason she was given by the editors was..
SMCの存在によって、ニュース機関等が、科学報告を軽視する傾向が強まってきている。最近、オーストラリアの新聞は、科学レポーターであるLeigh Dayton氏を、解雇した。 その理由は、その新聞社の編集者から、得た理由によると、

they could rely on the supply of press releases from the Australian SMC so that their general reporters could write the science news”.
“一般のレポーターたちが科学ニュース記事をかけるぐらい十分な情報がオーストラリアSMCからの広報から得られるため、だという。”


 

There is growing evidence that the existence of SMCs is also encouraging news organizations to downgrade science reporters. Recently the newspaper The Australian sacked its science reporter, Leigh Dayton. The reason she was given by the editors was..

“they could rely on the supply of press releases from the Australian SMC so that their general reporters could write the science news”. [Ed: Leigh Dayton denies having said this and we are currently endeavouring to check with the author of the Columbia Journalism Review paper as to the veracity or otherwise of the above statement.]

A large empirical study carried out recently by Andy Williams of Cardiff University, UK also confirmed that..

Science PR was increasing and independent science journalism was decreasing.

Fiona Fox and Connie St. Louis http://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/science_media_centers_the_pres.php?page=4


 

I knew that quality science journalism in Australia was dwindling. It took the most recent pro-nuclear advertorial in the Fairfax media to really wake me up to this. John Watson, ‘Senior writer’ at Fairfax Media, wrote an article entitled, Want to kill fewer people? Go nuclear…..

Why have The Age,  Sydney Morning Herald and others sunk to this level of sloppy journalism?

Apart from the obvious fact they don’t want to offend their corporate backers, this kind of writing is symptomatic of what happens when you get rid of your qualified dedicated science journalists. Amongst the plethora of Fairfax journalists encouraged to depart their jobs were science editor Deborah Smith, health editor Julie Robotham, health correspondent Mark Metherell and environment reporter Rossyln Beeby. 


 

Screenshot from 2014-05-11 22:45:51

Click on image to go down the rabbit hole :)

About these ads

May 11, 2014 - Posted by | Arclight's Vision

1 Comment »

  1. Always amazing that there is this much evil! They suspended the account with the Monbiot pic already. Monbiot still just strikes me as someone who is contrary to be contrary. There are those people in the world. I haven’t trusted the New York Times since they had a reporter who appeared in the hire of either the US gov or Haitian elites to tell nothing but lies about Aristide 20 plus years ago. Plenty of journalists are simply lazy too. How to explain that 20 to 30 journalists get an award for constant coverage of Syria, when the only one who should get it is the person in the field? And, the coverage is so repetitive. One or two independent people could do a better job with the marvels of modern tech and probably are. But, they don’t get awards.

    Comment by miningawareness | May 15, 2014 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,116 other followers

%d bloggers like this: