|
...throughout this situation and I've been disappointed--to say the least.
They've been carrying water for these energy companies. At first, they
unleashed a few "rosy scenario" articles and downplayed the entire
situation. If you read the comments sections of these articles, the Times
journalistic failures were revealed. Several nuclear-energy experts
commented, and gave their names and credentials (Google searches validated
their claims) and they basically said the Times was full of it.
It's really disconcerting to see this. When you can't even count on the Times.
The jist of many earlier articles downplayed the seriousness of this situation.
Any schmo could have seen that the situation was in flux--and that NO ONE could
have solidly determined that everything was coming up roses. Big red flag there!
So now the Times is showing that radiation will be here--but they tell us it's no
big deal. Again, they don't know for sure.
Yet, the insist on constantly telling us that everything is just fine.
We don't even know yet what the final state of these nuclear reactors will be. Will
they completely melt down? Yet, the Times wants us to believe that they've got
accurate radiation levels predicted, as well as weather patterns too.
This is the exact pattern used by BP--with regard to the
consequences of Corexit and oil in the Gulf and in the air. We were constantly
told that there was nothing to worry about--even before the disaster had completely
played out. Even before scientists, researchers and medical experts had measured
the damage.
They've got their slogan and their lines, "All is well and will remain well." Those lines
are designed to allow big corporations to remain unaccountable and they do NOTHING to
help out the people who could be affected.
Once again...we are on our own.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
