I think the problem with media coverage is that it is entirely dependent on which reporter, which paper, which owner, which experts, what spin and most importantly, who's paying.

Unfortunately, while the first two are well known, the more important factors are invariably hidden. In the wake of the fukushima problem, it was noticeable that articles came out backing nuclear power. Who had they spoken to ? Or rather, who had spoken to them ? In the Guardian I expected the article from Julian Glover who is a right wing lickspittle with little intellectual heft. You could see right through his praise. But George Monbiot ? That was surprising. But I'm similar things happened in other papers.

Maybe Monbiot was writing with a pen uncluttered by the enticements of Corporate power, but a writer such as he who is invariably discussing the long haul on climate change, farming practices and the security of the biosphere should have at least mentioned the long term problems with nuclear. It was that absence that troubled me.

And that's the real problem with nuclear. The companies, the governments are obsessed with secrecy, terrified of negative reviews and will denigrate mercilessly anyone who dares to smear dirt on their shiny dreams. But if they won't speak the truth about their problems, problems that would scare anyone, why should we ever trust them ? and if the media don't know, how can they report reality ?

keep to the Fen Causeway