I’m pro nuclear energy and think that people who are against are just unknowingly helping the fossil fuel industry.

  • redtea
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    11 months ago

    I wonder whose behind all that negative coverage?

    Thanks for the link.

    • HaSch
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      I cannot discount the possibility of the fossile fuel lobby being somehow involved in this, but from a standpoint of pure sensationalism I can see why you would rather cover Chernobyl than the 2016 Great Smog of Delhi. The former involves a lot of topics with which the average viewer is barely familiar but still finds interesting, such as nuclear physics or engineering failures, so there’s a lot of rabbit holes to be dug into. Meanwhile, the origins and effects of pollution are widely understood, there really isn’t anything new to be said, and so a news story about polluted air killing 2 million Indians every year isn’t so much interesting as it is just sad.

      • redtea
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        You’ve got a point there. There’s a strong sense in which you need a sensation to sell a story and get engagement now (maybe it’s nothing new but there’s more to compete with today than ever). It’s a terrible feedback loop. I can’t say that in immune to it myself, either. So I can understand why filmmakers, etc, will go for one story over another, even if the decision maker has another reason why they prefer the anti-communist/pro-fossil narrative.