Environmental News Analysis

The heading of Andrew Kramer’s article in the New York Times on March 19th was “Safety Issues Linger as Nuclear Reactors Shrink in Size”. From this, one can easily distinguish the tone of the article to follow. A story has a greater chance of being reported if it contains negativity; there is a frequent emphasis on bad news (Anderson, 1997). Rather than highlight the progress on becoming more environmentally friendly, Kramer has chosen to emphasize the drawbacks and potential hazards of the new, smaller nuclear reactors.

Taking a look at the lead paragraph and the surrounding context, the drawbacks to the progress made in nuclear reactors seems to be the theme of this article. The first five or so paragraphs highlight the negative components. Kramer uses phrases such as “no one knows how to handle”, “no engineering solution has been devised yet”, and “still years from being realized” to make the reader aware of the long way scientists still have to go before we can reap the benefits from such technologies. While Kramer begins his article with the negatives, he does touch on some of the good possibilities and benefits of smaller nuclear reactors, but then returns to the drawbacks in the last few paragraphs. By concluding his article in such a manor, Kramer leaves the reader with the impression that small nuclear reactors are more bitter than they are sweet. I feel this is typical of today’s environmental stories in the media: rather than highlight the progress made, we point out the flaws.

Surprisingly, the picture contained in the article is one of low entertainment value. Rather than using symbolism to enhance the negative effects of the smaller nuclear reactors, Kramer used a picture of a submarine that uses such a reactor. Often we would expect something like a picture of the pollution caused by these reactors; which could cause harm to animals living in the ocean. I believe the photo in this article is a more neutral enhancement of the story, and a fair choice.

Most environmentally centered stories in the media tend to rely on expert opinion to frame the content. In Kramer’s article, there was little support provided by “experts”. Although very little direct quoting was used, Kramer did use information provided by the director of Akme Engineering to reinforce the potential of smaller nuclear reactors. Following this, Kramer provides the reader with little hope of any benefits in the near future, carrying out the negative tone of the article as a whole. The lack of actual “expert” support leaves the reader to believe that Kramer, himself, may be an expert on the subject. The support provided by “experts” is pretty equally represented on both sides of the argument. However, it appears that Kramer was tactful in his choices of what information from each side to use. From the companies in support of the smaller nuclear reactors, Kramer used little information about the advantages and more about the negatives, whenever possible.

In conclusion, the tone of this article is made obvious right from it’s heading. The negativity is something we can expect in environmental stories in the media today. Perfection is a long way coming, but sometimes it would be nice to reflect on the progress made.

A link to the Kramer’s article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/19/business/energy-environment/19minireactor.html

Also referenced,
Anderson, Alison. (1997). Media, culture, and the environment. Rutgers Univ Pr.