I was disappointed in Mike Dorning’s handling of the recent defeat of nuclear waste legislation in the House of Representatives (Main news, June 3). Although journalists should strive toward objective reporting, I believe the article (“Bill creating storage site for nuclear waste killed”) was neither comprehensive nor objective, better suited for the editorial pages. I am a senior at Northwestern majoring in political science and have spent many months researching this issue.
I have three main objections to the story:
– Dorning makes the assumption that the only reason the bill did not make it to the floor was because Rep. John Ensign (R-Nev.) would be embarrassed at its strong House support. But Dorning leaves out any factual account of support for the measure or alternative reasons why it did not make it to the floor.
– Dorning makes the argument that the defeat of this bill is detrimental without attempting to list the reasons this bill is dangerous to the environment and to Native American culture. This article does not mention that the interim storage facility would release harmful radiation into the water supply of thousands of Nevadans. He only mentions that the bill would have saved money for consumers in Illinois, assuming that lower taxes override any other concerns.
– Dorning makes a factual misstatement about the location of the interim storage facility. Dorning argues that it is adjacent to Yucca Mountain, “a former Cold War atomic testing ground.” The mountain, however, actually lies in disputed territory on the Shoshone Reservation and is sacred to the people who live there. This land was taken by the federal government against their will.
In light of the above issues I would appreciate if in the future, reporters attempted to either state both sides of the issue or write a smaller piece giving an account of legislative action in the House.
